home

Hannity Interviews Zimmerman

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 12:42:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Huffington reports (TV Newswer actually):

Sean Hannity has landed the first interview with Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman. Hannity interviewed both Zimmerman and his attorney, Mark O'Mara, for an episode that will air on Wednesday night. A press release said that "Zimmerman will open up about what happened the night of Trayvon Martin’s death and his experience in the aftermath of the fatal shooting."

You decide. No comment from me.

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | "Soshulizm!" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hannity Interviews Zimmerman | 193 comments (193 topical)
    All publicity is publicity (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    I won't be watching. I will be listening to DKos radio on Elizabeth Warren tomorrow.

    Not going to spoil my perfect record of never (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    watching Hannity.

    Parent
    Off topic subthread deleted (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:35:09 PM EST


    Parent
    More raw meat. Mr. O'Mara couldn't (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 12:52:14 PM EST
    be a competent criminal defense attorney and let his loose cannon client be interviewed pre-trial.  Amazing.  (But I must reserve judgment, not having heard the interview; maybe the exception.)
    I've gotta believe ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    ... this will be among the most boring, uninformative interviews of all time.

    If O'Mara has any control over his client, he'd make sure he only answered the softball/fluff questions, preferably while sitting beside him.  For anything substantive, the answer would be, "I can't really get into that ...", etc.  I would expect most of the interview will focus on how hard this has been on him and his family, etc.

    ... and O'Mara should make sure he keeps a serious/somber tone and avoids any more hoodie jokes.

    Parent

    It doesn't look to me like Mr. O'Mara (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:22:57 PM EST
    has good client control.  What's your opinion?

    Parent
    I would agree (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    I would never agree to let a client be interviewed pre-trial, but maybe in a very tightly controlled environment and (obviously) friendly forum, he justifies the risk by the public sympathy and $$$ it will generate.

    I can't help but assume that O'Mara would have sat down with Zimmerman and had a very stern "come-to-Jesus" talk after the whole Paypal/bond fiasco.

    Parent

    No, it is (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by bmaz on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    ...beyond asinine and stupid to do this.  There is NOTHING good that can come of it from a technical criminal defense perspective, and plenty of potential for bad.  And, if you are looking for public support and fair jury pool consideration, in a polarized election season, you do not piss off half the pool by going on such a belligerently slanted forum.

    If you have to go on the TeeVee, you pick a neutral forum. My guess is they are trolling for dollars from their most likely donator base, NRA types. If so, penny wise and pound foolish. Or however that trite little fable goes....

    Parent

    Has any attorney controlled Zimmerman? (none / 0) (#63)
    by J Upchurch on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    I have been thinking that the only reason O'Mara bailed Zimmerman out of jail was to get him away from the telephone. They would save a fortune on security if they let Zimmerman stay in jail.

    Is Hannity flying to Sanford for the interview or they doing it online?

    Parent

    It does seem (none / 0) (#80)
    by spectator on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:53:22 PM EST
    scarey but we'll see, it's a big moment for O'Mara's credibility, and yes George's too.

    Parent
    I think it's pretty much already been (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:42:11 PM EST
    established that O'Mara hasn't had much control over his client, but at this stage, I'm wondering how much of this interview is being done for Zimmerman's benefit and how much of it is going to be CYA for what was revealed in those phone calls that doesn't look too good for O'Mara.

    I don't know that this is a good decision on O'Mara's part; I keep thinking of the decision Jerry Sandusky's lawyer made to let his client do an interview with Bob Costas; parts of that ended up as evidence in Sandusky's trial.

    And the choice of Hannity?  Well, now there's no doubt who their target audience is.

    Parent

    People who don't like seeing innocents go to jail? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by redwolf on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    Given the evidence, why do liberals want Zimmerman locked away and conservatives don't?  I get the whole political tribal ra ra thing, but where's the interest in justice?  The whole politicization of taking sides reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse thing.

    Parent
    Meh. (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:12:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't want him locked up... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    When the trial is said and done, reasonable doubt will most likely exist and he should be acquited.

    Now in my kangaroo moral court, dude is guilty of several felonies.

    Parent

    Yeah, that really bugs me (4.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Jello333 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    I'm a liberal. Actually I'm a far-lefty in most regards. But other than Jeralyn's site and a tiny handful of others, most "liberal" sites (and MSM) are happily following the Scheme Team Crump's line perfectly. Chances are if you find a website that's trying to tell the truth, or the occasional interview on MSM, it's coming from the "conservative" side. I'm not sure why that is, but being a liberal it REALLY bothers me that I'm being called a "traitor" for conversing with conservatives. Simply because I care about truth, I care about justice, I care about INjustice!

    Parent
    It's not really that hard to figure out why (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:08:39 PM EST
    so much of the support for Zimmerman is coming from conservative websites: it's about gun rights, and Stand Your Ground, two things one is not likely to see much support for among liberals.

    Now, Jeralyn has taken the position that both of those things should be things liberals support, although there is plenty of disagreement about that here.

    I think that while most liberals have a strong belief in the presumption of innocence, most liberals also have a strong belief in hearing, as much as possible, the voice of someone who cannot speak for himself because he's dead, at the hands of George Zimmerman.

    That presumption of innocence does not seem to extend to Trayvon Martin, interestingly.  We are to consider Zimmerman innocent of manslaughter, but we are to consider Martin guilty of assault - it's the only way Zimmerman's claim works.  I don't suppose you - and your conservative friends - have considered this, or whether it matters to you.

    As a liberal myself, I have a very hard time putting much stock in conservatives' new-found interest in justice after years of their cheering on the many injustices perpetrated by - most recently - the Bush/Cheney administration.  I would challenge you to hang out at some conservative websites and discuss something other than Zimmerman, and see just how committed to justice they are.

    Parent

    I'm sure you know the old adage (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by expy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:37:33 PM EST
    What's the definition of a liberal?   A conservative who has been arrested.

    It's obvious to those of us on the left that Mr. Zimmerman has received treatment from the police and the court that is far more accommodating to his rights than is typical for most individuals coming through the criminal justice system. So it's hard to buy into the "outrage" expressed over a guy who was released on the night of the shooting, provided the opportunity to turn himself in when a charging decision was made, and promptly admitted to bail.  Just about everything else bad that has happened to Mr. Zimmerman since is clearly a result of poor decisions made either by himself or his counsel.

    Parent

    Except (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:26:57 PM EST
    The decision to charge.
    Just about everything else bad that has happened to Mr. Zimmerman since is clearly a result of poor decisions made either by himself or his counsel.

    Everyone should be concerned when there are numerous indication that the decision to charge Zimmerman appears to be at least  motivated by a desire to avoid a riot.

    FBI documents give us a glimpse into the deliberative process surrounding the decision to prosecute.
    Most neutral commentators comment adversely of the paucity of evidence supporting the charge.

    Due process, and the expectation of each citizen to be shielded from politically motivated prosecution should be defended by all Americans.


    Parent

    Still with the 'riots' ? (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:56:06 PM EST
    Funny I live 15 miles from Sanford and never saw anything close to a riot. I wish people would stop predict-imagining them.

    Parent
    Sergeant Arthur Barns (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:45:15 AM EST
    In his FBI interview, Sergeant Barns of the SPD advised the FBI that he thought the African American community would be in an "uproar" if Zimmerman is not charged.  p94 of the second long document dump provided by the state.

    Barns said the community is 50-50 split on whether or not the shooting was a hate crime.  I realize that's his unscientific opinion of public belief, but if true it shows a fairly substantial misimpression by the public.  I suspect that 50-50 split (or whatever it really is) is and will be persistent, regardless of what the FBI interviews revealed, and regardless of what future evidence shows.

    Parent

    Well, if he said 'uproar' based on (none / 0) (#187)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    his own opinion of the community, there must be impending riots. I did not say that only commenters here were predict-imagining.

    Parent
    Why should the reaction of some citizens (none / 0) (#209)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:41:16 PM EST
     be considered when a decision to charge is being contemplated?

    Particularly when it is being considered as a factor supporting charge.

    Parent

    It shouldn't at all. On that we agree. (none / 0) (#215)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:30:42 PM EST
    I think the protests were useful in bringing another set of eyes to review the case - the state officials and the FBI - after the Sanford officials said they would not charge. But if the state did not think charges were warranted, they should have said so, and explained why loud and clear, something the Sanford officials failed to do.

    Parent
    You should take up your (none / 0) (#157)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:09:40 AM EST
    protests with the Sanford PD. The information I references was from FBI interviews of Sanford PD investigators. I personally have no idea of the reality but their mindset is more relevant.

     But IMR around the time of peak publicity -protest concerning some of the public statements from the protest leaders  contained thinned veiled threats of domestic disorder if Zimmerman was not arrested.


    Parent

    Cvil disobedience and boycotts (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:32:22 PM EST
    are not riots.

    Parent
    The feds placed community intervenors (none / 0) (#159)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:31:18 AM EST
    I think there is an open question about the probability of mass civil disobedience, but there was enough concern on the part of the state that the feds were called to provided "community service relations" people to the community, to facilitate "calming" discussion.

    Sanford, Fla., Sighs In Relief And Looks Forward : NPR - April 14, 2012

    Parent

    No Justice, No Peace..... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:40:16 AM EST
    Chanted at a rally led by Sharpton.  Sharpton started the chant.

    Parent
    There's a big difference between a protest and (none / 0) (#197)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    a riot.  They aren't the same, not even close.

    The fact is people have a right to express their grievances and to peacefully assemble.

    It is a right that deserves to be held at least as sacred as the right to bear arms but for some reason it seems folks who view the 2nd amendment as the 'be all and end all' -- for whatever reason -- seem to get themselves all worked up over others expressing themselves through protest.

    It's absolutely mind boggling.

    Parent

    I agree, but chanting ... (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:06:04 PM EST
    No justice, no peace, is likely to make many think that if the outcome is not what the protestors want...  perhaps there will be no peace.  What is so mindbogling about that?

    Parent
    Oh please.... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:21:20 PM EST


    Parent
    But groups protesting putting (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:53:52 PM EST
    a bounty on George's head? C;mon.

    Parent
    Are you saying there were objections to people (none / 0) (#211)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    protesting the New Black Panther Party's bounty on GZ?

    Please supply a link.

    I never heard of anyone coming out in support of the bounty, only denunciations of it.

    Parent

    I notice (none / 0) (#107)
    by friendofinnocence on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:45:16 PM EST
    you mentioned the police and the court, but left out the Governor, the Attorney General, and the State Attorney.

    Parent
    And a conservative... (none / 0) (#198)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    ...is a liberal who's just been mugged. : - )

    Parent
    You are confused, Anne (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:38:24 PM EST
    That presumption of innocence does not seem to extend to Trayvon Martin, interestingly.  We are to consider Zimmerman innocent of manslaughter, but we are to consider Martin guilty of assault - it's the only way Zimmerman's claim works.

    You are mixing up words referring to legal grounds for conviction with words that describe what actually happened.  That is a big difference.  You can believe that Zimmerman is not guilty BRD of manslaughter and that Martin is not guilty BRD of assault.  In cases where it is not clear what happened, the one who is on trial walks.  Remember the John and Lorena Bobbit cases?  They both were found not guilty.

    Parent

    Yet Zimmerman is the only one... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:44:31 AM EST
    showing physical signs that he was assaulted, and witness testimonies exist claiming Martin was on top of Zimmerman.  The only question is who started things, but Martin did not show any signs of being hit as Zimmerman did.

    Parent
    Gz the "only one showing physical signs (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    that he was assaulted..." ??

    How about a gunshot wound? Physical enough for you?

    Parent

    I am an independnt and anti gun (2.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Darby on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:41:37 PM EST
    Are you saying because liberals are anti gun thy are anti gz, even though it is legal for him to own a gun? I don't get the correlation.  How can anyone be anti self defense?

    And what do you mean by hear the voice of Trayvon Martin? Other than witnesses and evidence there is no way to hear his side.   Unless you are talking about crumbs fabrications?   I have not heard anyone who supports gz be against hearing evidence or witnesses, so what exactly are you saying liberals want that those whose support gz don't?

    The reason why gz is presumed innocent and not Martin is based upon all the evidence we have seen so far. Corroborating witness testimony and injuries and evidence also support this.

    Parent

    WHAT EVIDENCE do you have (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:42:11 AM EST
    that TM started the confrontation "OTHER THAN ZIM"?... What EVIDENCE do you have that TM went for ZIM's gun "OTHER THAN ZIM"?.. ZIM's credibility is this ENTIRE CASE and IMO it's shaky at best.

    Parent
    You seem a bit confused... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:26:43 AM EST
    ...as to who has the burden of proof.

    That said, the location of the confrontation, and the timeline, points to TM confronting GZ. As does Dee Dee's story. Not that who confronted who is of much relevance.

    At some point the existance of the gun became evident to both parties. Maybe GZ is lying or mistaken to think that TM ever saw the gun. Again, that doesn't really matter. A verbal warning or warning shot isn't required. If he was in reasonable fear of severe bodily injury GZ was entitled to plug TM without giving him the opprtunity to grapple for control of the gun.

    And there are other reasons than Z's testimony to think he was in reasonable fear of severe bodily injury (witnesses, physical evidence) so, no, his credibility isn't the "ENTIRE CASE".

    Parent

    Confrontation... (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    ...can be "What are you following me for?".

    Which in and of itself is not physical assault.

    The young lady saying Martin spoke first is not the same as the young lady saying Martin threw the first unprovoked punch.

    Parent

    Evidence (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:37:32 AM EST
    WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that TM started the confrontation "OTHER THAN ZIM"?

    Direct Evidence

    We have Zimmerman's Statement which was delivered immediately after the incident when he was unaware of what evidence including potential videotapes could be used to contradict it.

    We Have DeeDee's collaborating recollection of Martin initiating the verbal confrontation

    We have the physical injuries to GZ

    We have a lack of physical trauma to TM  ( except the gunshot)

    Indirect or circumstantial evidence.

    We have the results of an FBI investigation that interviewed a broad sample of Zimmerman's co workers neighbors and other contemporaries.
    - They all (including his ex fiance) characterized GZ as non confrontational,even meek in his dealings with strangers and coworkers even when he was mistreated by others.

    We have a history of previous incidents where GZ studiously avoided contact with the suspect.

    We have GZ with the knowledge that police were on the way.

    What do you have to show the TM was not the aggressor?

    BTW even if Zimmerman started the struggle - which would defy logic but lets assume- he still has a valid self defence - lethal force claim

    Parent

    Give a more precise objection (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:20:52 PM EST
    You say liberals are generally against "Stand your ground." Can you add some more about that?  SYG is used as shorthand for so many things, that it isn't clear to me where the objection lies.  Let me know if you need a link to Florida's statutory law for the justified use of force.

    Parent
    SYG + guns (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by expy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 08:00:11 PM EST
    The common law has always been that a home occupant had an absolute right to self defense, but a person in a public place had a duty to retreat if possible.  The logic is simply that no on is harmed by leaving a place that does not belong to them, so people should be encourage to back down from fights that start in public places rather than to allow them to escalate.

    So SYG is a major deviation -- it basically places greater value on protecting a person from a sense of wounded pride than on human lives.  

    When you add guns into the mix it's a recipe for disaster, basically providing an incentive to the shooter to get rid of the only witness who can counter their claim of "self defense".

    Parent

    In this case though (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Darby on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    There was no ability to retreat.

    Even before stand your ground you always had a right to defend yourself from serious injury or death.

    Parent

    Zimmerman's story (none / 0) (#145)
    by expy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:47:08 AM EST
    is not "stand your ground", as he claims he was jumped, dragged, suffocate, etc.

    So he would be able to plead self defense in any case, and take it to a jury.

    The problem with the Florida law is that it also gives civil and criminal immunity, which then converts an ordinary self-defense claim into something that creates additional procedural barriers to prosecutors or civil litigants.

    So that makes self-defense claims privileged above and beyond any other claim of defense to any other possible offense.

    Parent

    Just my opinion and IMNAL... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:52:41 AM EST
    But I think it is right that if a person is acquitted in a criminal trial due to self-defense grounds, then there should not be any subsequent civil suits, SYG or not.  Again, just my opinion.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    Should there be any civil liability against the Martin's or the state if GZ is acquitted?


    Parent
    It depends (none / 0) (#196)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    The existence of a suit in civil law depends on what the state and the Martin's did.

    Quick off the top of the head (no research, error prone)

    I don't think he'd bring it, but he does, on facts he alleges, have an assault and battery case against Martin's estate or parents.  There might be a bar on account of Martin being dead, and the general principle that you can't hold others accountable for what Martin did - but that does break down when the actor is a minor.  The parents become liable for the damages caused by their child.

    There may be a defamation case.

    Slim chance, but not zero, that he has a case for malicious or wrongful prosecution.

    Parent

    The framework is more complex (none / 0) (#192)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:04:52 AM EST
    In Florida, the right to be free from civil trial is tied to the certainty of the evidence.

    If there is no finding by a court that it is more likely than not a person was justified, then there has to be a civil trial to reach that finding.  The criminal trial doesn't require "that much" self defense evidence in order to produce an acquittal.  In a criminal trial, if you think it maybe might have been self defense, then you acquit.  It doesn't have to be more likely it was self defense, just maybe it was.

    Florida law is arranged so this "more likely than not" determination can be made by a judge, before going through a criminal trial.  That's what expy objects to.  He objects that a person who has a strong claim of self defense can escape criminal and civil trial.

    He likely doesn't think a slam dunk case of self defense should be charged - but if the prosecutor charges, then both criminal and civil trials are in order.

    Parent

    Completely different ... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    ... standards/burdens of proof and differing standards for admission of evidence.  Generally, criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil trials have a much lower standard (preponderance of the evidence).  Evidence that is not admissible in a criminal trial may be admissible in a civil trial.  Also, the basis for a civil suit may involve similar actions but have different elements ...

    i.e. O.J. Simpson's murder trial versus the wrongful death civil suit.

    Parent

    Intended feature, not a "problem". (3.50 / 2) (#151)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:28:46 AM EST


    Parent
    That's a decent argument against SYG (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jello333 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:28:59 AM EST
    But it doesn't apply to this case. Or rather, I should say, it isn't NECESSARY in this case. George has (based on pretty much all the evidence) a solid basic self-defense claim. The "no duty to retreat" part of SYG doesn't really apply here if the evidence is as some of us believe: That GZ could NOT retreat/escape even if he wanted to.

    No, I'm not a fan of SYG laws in general, partly for the reasons you noted. But one thing I DO like about the laws are that they bar civil suits. I actually think that should apply to ANY successful self-defense case. Do you not find it odd that Crump and his buddies go on and on about "just get this to trial", even if in the end he's found not-guilty, but when the possibility of a SYG hearing comes up, they start screaming how unfair it would be for it to end there? In my opinion, I think the reason for that is because they know that if it goes to trial, even if George is acquitted they can still work on "wrongful death" civil suits. But if he wins at SYG hearing, then it's all over. NO CIVIL SUITS can be filed against George or, more importantly, against ANYONE linked to him.  And yeah, if you're wondering if I'm accusing Crump and some others of being in this for the $$$$ (and the fame)... absolutely.

    Parent

    you mean "BASED ON Zimmerman word" (none / 0) (#136)
    by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:50:06 AM EST
    if i'm wrong correct me but "OTHER THAN ZIM". no on saw how the confrontation started or 95% of the rest of his account of events including TM reaching for ZIM's gun. Zimmerman's credibility is this ENTIRE CASE.

    Parent
    How do you explain away the obvious (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:55:06 AM EST
    injuries to Zimmerman then?

    Parent
    Well, one possibility... (none / 0) (#200)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:03:13 PM EST
    ...in the real world, as opposed to what the defense and prosecution limit themselves to discussing, is that Zimmerman starts it and proceeds to lose big time.

    If he reaches out and grabs Martin's right arm with his left to hold him for the cops, he's started it.

    That might also explain why a right-handed Martin would hit the right-hand side of Zimmerman's face with his (Martin's)left hand when Zimmerman's right hand started digging for what Martin may have feared to be a weapon more lethal than a cell phone.

    But of course that would put you in the territory of wondering "what are the facts", rather than wondering "what is the evidence".

    A fact won't be in evidence if no one knows about it, or if the only surviving person who knows about it doesn't mention it.

    Parent

    You think it is all money and fame (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:13:50 AM EST
    and no desire to see Zimmerman suffer some kind of legal reprimand for his actions? I don't buy it.

    Parent
    Then whose fault (none / 0) (#137)
    by spectator on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:56:51 AM EST
    is it to allow one a permit ?


    Parent
    "Scheme Team"... (4.83 / 6) (#66)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:41:29 PM EST
    are you saying it's all a ruse, they faked Trayon's killing and he's alive somewhere?

    Whoever is calling you a "traitor" is retarded, I debate conservatives all the time, sh*t I am conservative on some select issues and agree with them...what I can't understand is why George Zimmerman has become the posterboy for "injustice" when there are so many more deserving cases, like every poor slob locked up on a drug charge who never killed nobody.  Where have these conservative fighters for truth and justice been for 50 years?  My libertarian pals excluded, of course.

    I mean he did kill a kid, did he not?  Maybe murder, maybe self-defense, maybe something in the middle...thats for a jury. But morally, if not legally, there is blood on his hands caused in whole or in part by his reckless and dangerous (imo) behavior.  It's beyond me how people don't see that.

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    don't understand how Martin became the posterboy for injustice. Dead 17 year olds aren't exactly rare. There are plenty of police shootings that are more questionable and outrageous than this case. Plus factor in that police should be held to a higher standard. There aren't any shootings where the shooter didn't end up with a broken nose and a bloody head that seem questionable?

    Parent
    "Kid" as in still technically... (3.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Jello333 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    .... a "minor"? Yeah. But if what most of the evidence and witnesses points at turns out to, in fact, be true, then Trayvon was very much the instigator and the cause of his own death. I can imagine myself getting in a fight with someone, even if that person was in some regards smaller than me (as George was than Trayvon). I can imagine myself punching him in the nose and knocking him down. I can even imagine myself then jumping on top of him and start pounding on him. What I can NOT imagine myself doing is, once I had that person on the ground and he was screaming and pleading for help, for mercy.... I can NOT at that point imagine myself continuing to pummel him. But it looks very much like that's exactly what Trayvon did to George. Do you find that not the least bit troubling that that "kid" would do that to another person?

    Parent
    Any brutality is troubling to me (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:39:53 PM EST
    Including the increased likelihood of fatal brutality that goes along with bringing a gun to a fist fight that could have been avoided.

    I think that under the law it seems the self defense plea should be successful. It does not mean I agree with anything Zimmerman did that night. There is only one reason he is being embraced by the right, and that is as a surrogate in the longstanding arguments with Sharpton and other black leaders.

    Parent

    I am very much a liberal and I (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:00:22 AM EST
    also think that Sharpton and Team Crump's behavior has been out of line, as you claim conservatives feel.

    Parent
    In your imagination, how much time (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:25:15 PM EST
    would it take you to snap out of it and stop pummeling the guy? From the tape of the W23's 911 call, there was about 48 seconds from the time she called to report multiple men yelling and scuffling, which you can hear in the background, to the time of the shot. You can hear it escalating from yelling as it travels past her house to the screaming and then the shot. Do you think you would snap out of it in 30 seconds or so before the guy you were hitting decided to end the fight in his own way? If so, good for you.  

    Parent
    "If"? (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:35:13 PM EST
    Of course anyone would find that "troubling" - IF you accept Zimmerman's version of events.  There are no witnesses who saw how the fight started.  There are no witnesses who heard the confrontation (apart from Deedee).  There are no witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's claims that Martin said he was going to kill him, tried to suffocate him, or was trying to get his gun.  The only witness who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman "MMA style" says he doesn't know if Martin was hitting Zimmerman or restraining him.  So much of the case comes down to Zimmerman's credibility and whether you believe his version of events.  You would have to believe that a neighborhood watch captain who lived in the small development for years needed to go "look for a street sign" because he can't remember the name of one of three streets in his development.  You would have to believe that, after telling Zimmerman he was "going to die", Martin repeatedly slammed his head into a concrete walkway - but left only two, minor cuts on the back of his head.  You would have to believe that after Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose - breaking his nose and knocking him down with a single blow - he got on top of him and punched him in the face a "couple dozen" more times, but leaving virtually no injuries apart from the initial broken nose on Zimmerman, a swollen lip and only a tiny nick on one of Martin's own fingers.  None of which even touches on the inconsistencies with Zimmerman's statements and his veracity issues.

    You can choose to believe him.  I'd prefer to leave it up to a jury after they hear all of the evidence.

    Parent

    You are distorting the jury's job (3.50 / 2) (#109)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:52:27 PM EST
    The prosecution will try to make this verdict depend on how credible Zimmerman is.  However if the defense and judge do their jobs, it will be clear to the jury that Zimmerman should be found not guilty providing it is reasonable that both the following are true:

    1. Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal, like trying to forcibly detain Martin, in the events right before the shooting.

    2. Zimmerman felt he had no way of avoiding serious harm to himself besides shooting Martin.

    You don't need to believe Zimmerman never lies to find both reasonable.

    Parent
    No, I'm "distorting" nothing (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 08:21:15 PM EST
    I've tried many cases - I know the jury's role.

    You don't need to believe Zimmerman never lies to find both reasonable.

    Of course you don't.  Of course, no one was even suggesting that you need to believe Zimmerman never lies to find him not guilty.

    The jury is free to accept or reject Zimmerman's version of events in whole or in part based on their assessment of his credibility, as well as how his version of events aligns (or doesn't) with the other evidence.  Assuming the judge doesn't grant Zimmerman's SYG motion (if he makes one), they will be the ultimate arbiter of the factual issues.

    Parent

    Some people (none / 0) (#134)
    by spectator on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:39:46 AM EST
    just don't understand how fights work, or take time to understand defense or even notice someones face after ground and pound or even after the fight.

    inconsistencies?  you mean yours.

    "punched him in the face a "couple dozen" more times"

    that speaks for itself.


    Parent

    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:10:08 AM EST
    Some people just don't understand how fights work, or take time to understand defense or even notice someones face after ground and pound or even after the fight.

    You're right ... some people don't.

    But I do.

    inconsistencies?  you mean yours.

        "punched him in the face a "couple dozen" more times"

    that speaks for itself.

    Really?  You think Zimmerman didn't say that he was punched a couple dozen times?  'Cause I'd be more than happy to show you how wrong you are.

    Parent

    I see it differently... (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:50:41 AM EST
    from a street justice perspective, Zimmerman's actions that night totally justified Martin cleaning his clock.  He dropped a dime on the kid for no reason, surveilled him, tracked him...where I'm from that is seriously bad form, ymmv.  And unless you're jamming Ghandi up, you shouldn't be suprised to end up in a fist fight.
    As my old man used to say, Zimmerman was "cruising for a bruising".  

    If Martin did in fact throw the first punch, I can't say I blame him.  And if he did in fact lump him up so bad that Zimmerman feared death, Zimmerman's lethal force is legally justified.  But in my opinion, not morally justified, no way no how.  I have a hard time buying Martin tried to kill him, I think it more likely that is Zimmerman's fear-warped perspective of the events talking.  

    If he left the gun at home, I think everybody lives, and Zimmerman learns his lesson about what happens when you try to f*ck a stranger in the arse for the low low price of a busted beak and some cuts and bruises, instead of 2nd degree murder charges and his name being Mudd forever.

    Parent

    Sounds like you (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    are all for a state of anarchy and lawlessness.

    Luckily society doesn't agree with you.

    Parent

    Anarchy would be ideal... (none / 0) (#186)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    but the human race ain't ready...sh*t GZ has shown us that, we can't handle the responsibilty of gun ownership much less full on anarchy.  It sure would be nice though, maybe after another evolutionary leap or two.

    Parent
    Anarchy (none / 0) (#191)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:01:35 AM EST
    Like all extremist philosophies, has been proven to be horrible.

    Parent
    The philosophy is the best of 'em all... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:05:28 AM EST
    whats not to like about each human being governing thyself?

    The problem is, of course, as always, with any philosophy of governance...the fatally flawed human beings.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#194)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    Even the theory is flawed.

    We all still need each other for something.

    Anarchy only works if you live on a mountain all by yourself and never have to interact with another human being.

    Parent

    WHAT EVIDENCE do you have (none / 0) (#138)
    by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:02:55 AM EST
    TM started the confrontation? Zimmerman's word? in that case Witness #9's word is true .... this ENTIRE CASE is his credibility

    Parent
    I do not disagree with you... (2.00 / 1) (#155)
    by heidelja on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:34:45 AM EST
    ...but lets apply the "reckless and dangerous (imo) behavior" standard equally. Its only just, is it not?

    Few reasonable people would disagree that GZ has blood on his hands. However, ones should not be over driven by a sense of morality to the point of tacitly, if not out rightly, condoning the alleged manner of a teenager's response precipitating the outcome as being anywhere near appropriate. There is a large faction of commenters who seem to do so out of a sense of morality.

    The evidence does not support that GZ grossly crossed the line, but it certainly does appear that the teeanager did without the media drumming it up to be that he did. The teen's possible behavior of defiance goes supported once hearing the fewest elements of the teenager's background, or maybe it is by the lack of any good being discussed of the kid from others (outside his grieving parents) who know him well.

    Parent

    Easy now (none / 0) (#75)
    by spectator on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    don't let propaganda sway,this is microscope stuff, there's only several moral accusers, don't you think there would be many many more in this one sided fiasco?

    O'Mara and George & Shellie know the bulk of it all but we can only speculate and are clearly in the dark.

    Parent

    Who started the confrontation? (3.50 / 2) (#139)
    by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:07:21 AM EST
    is there a witness OTHER THAN ZIM?... credibility

    Parent
    It has to be binary, either all good or all evil.. (none / 0) (#202)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    "It's beyond me how people don't see that."

    If you're going to claim the moral high ground from which to tell other people how to run their lives, you cannot allow any shades of gray.

    Parent

    Easy (3.67 / 6) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    Many of us believe that based on the evidence we've seen, Zimmerman is responsible in almost every way for the boys death and should be punished.

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:46:13 PM EST
    you say Zimmerman is responsible in almost every way

    • which way is he not responsible?

    • if you had it in your power what punishment would you give Zimmerman?


    Parent
    What are the legal ways you see him (none / 0) (#101)
    by Darby on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:25:48 PM EST
    Responsible? I haven't seen any, do would like to know.


    Parent
    He killed an unarmed teen? (none / 0) (#141)
    by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:29:29 AM EST
    whom he profiled, followed the pursued on foot into the darkness with a loaded gun...

    Parent
    I think they chose Hannity... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:49:52 PM EST
    ...in anticipation of the questions he won't ask that just about anybody else would.

    Which is why he's not being interviewed by any of them.

    Parent

    Yeah, he's such a coward. (3.50 / 2) (#154)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:48:42 AM EST
    Coulda gone on Al Sharpton's show. Or ABC for inquiry by Matt Gutman. Or maybe allowed himself to be questioned by Bernard Crump on MSNBC. That woulda shown he was a stand-up guy!

    Parent
    Zimmerman (3.50 / 2) (#27)
    by friendofinnocence on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    is in charge.  Recall he contacted Hannity before O'Mara was his lawyer.  All he has to do is tell the truth and he'll be fine.

    Parent
    Which truth would that be? I seem to recall quite (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    a few inconsistencies among his stories.

    Parent
    What inconsistencies would those be? (3.60 / 5) (#67)
    by Jello333 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    The ones where he left out a detail here or there, or got the timeline a little off about what happened just before and during the physical confrontation with Martin? You know, when he gave the statements and did the walkthrough, within the first few hours after he had:

    Been suddenly confronted by an angry TM.

    Been punched in the nose and staggered.

    Been pinned to the ground and beaten, including having his head banged on the ground.

    Had the sensation of being suffocated (hand over mouth, nose full of blood).

    Screamed for help for likely a minute or more.

    Eventually been forced to kill another human being.

    Was now possibly about to be charged with a crime that could land you in prison for life.

    All this, for a person who has ADD.

    So you tell me... considering all this, just how "consistent" SHOULD a person be on every last detail of a life-altering event?

    Parent

    The timeline of the confrontation (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    is the thing that matters most in the determination of whether he was morally, if not legally, justified in using deadly force. He was not screaming for a minute or more, we have it on tape - it was 45 seconds of yelling, and then screaming, before the shot. There was not an 'eventually being forced' - he screamed and then he shot. I understand that he was injured and might not remember exactly, but he shortens and lengthens his perceptions of time as it suits his story.  

    Parent
    Oh c'mon (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Jello333 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:33:29 PM EST
    I thought it was obvious why I said he was yelling for help for "a minute or more", rather than the 45 seconds we hear on the tape. Unless George just decided to start screaming the second the first 911 call was answered, it makes perfect sense that he had already been yelling for some time BEFORE the call started. It takes some time for people to decide to call 911, dial the number, and then get an answer.... right? So I think there's a very high probability that George was screaming BEFORE the first call.

    Speaking of the screams, one of the last ones, maybe 5 seconds before the end, sounds like he's completely terrified, like he thinks HE is about to die. That is EXTREMELY powerful evidence that he feared for his life.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by expy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:45:30 PM EST
    that last scream sounds like a different voice to me.

    The witnesses who were there seem to report hearing multiple voices, so there's really no reason to assume that it is only one voice throughout.

    I agree about the "completely terrified" sound... but perhaps that's the sound someone might make if someone was holding a gun to their chest and seemed ready to shoot.

    I have a strong hunch that the prosecutor may plan to argue something along those lines.

    Parent

    Not likely (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MJW on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:15:45 PM EST
    I agree about the "completely terrified" sound... but perhaps that's the sound someone might make if someone was holding a gun to their chest and seemed ready to shoot.

    I can imagine someone in the process of being held down and beaten not being coherent enough to do more than shriek "Help me!" and scream.  I find it difficult to imagine someone with a gun to their chest just screaming "Help me!" over and over again.  Most people would fear that might provoke the assailant to pull the trigger.  If they did decide to scream, they'd probably also scream "Don't shoot!" or "Call the police!" or something similar.

    Parent

    Er (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by expy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:50:54 AM EST
    try reading the first sentence I wrote.

    The part about a "different voice".

    Parent

    Please stop posting speculation for which (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:40:32 AM EST
    there is no support in the disclosed facts. There is not a single report or witness who claims Zimmerman was "holding a gun to Martins' chest." There is not one report or statement that contradicts Zimmerman's statement he simultaneously drew his gun and fired.

    You are not a sound expert, nor have you heard the original recording. The FBI experts who have listened said no conclusion could be drawn.

    The prosecution may argue a lot of things it has no evidence to support. Their arguments are not evidence and the jury will be so instructed.

    Parent

    Listening to the call (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:54:45 PM EST
    You can hear when the yelling and scuffling escalates into the 'help, help, help' screaming. It is at most 15-20 seconds before the shot.  I just don't believe killing Martin was Zimmerman's only option, even though legally, yes, I understand he can probably prevail on the self defense plea because he does not have to exercise all his options.

    Parent
    We can listen for ouselves (none / 0) (#124)
    by MJW on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:19:16 PM EST
    The shot occurs at about 44.80.  At 18.63 there's a two syllable cry that sounds like it's probably "Help me!"  At 21.57, another two syllable cry that sounds like "Help me!"  At 21.80 this exchange:

    911 Operator: And you don't know why?
    Caller: I don't know why -- I think they're yelling help, but I don't know.

    From the very beginning of the call, the sounds would best be described as shrieks; at no time do they sound like mere "yelling and scuffling."

    Parent

    Sorry, the only thing I would describe as (none / 0) (#125)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:39:00 PM EST
    Shrieks are the last calls for help that are all in a row after that exchange with the operator. They are a lot louder and more frantic. I am not saying they are not Zimmerman, just that the nature of the yelling is different, and the whole screaming sequence did not last a minute and a half.

    Parent
    Well, people can decide for themselves (none / 0) (#126)
    by MJW on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:55:19 PM EST
    I'd call the cries at 2.63 and 8.64 shrieks.  Your definition of "shriek" must be different.  Whatever you call them, they certainly aren't the type of sound I associate with just "yelling and scuffling."

    Parent
    What do you call the cries at the end? (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:16:40 PM EST
    How do you escalate upward from shriek? To me that is the max. Doesn't matter though, just curious. Do you hear no difference?

    Parent
    Is that your personal definition? (none / 0) (#130)
    by MJW on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:27:47 PM EST
    I wasn't aware "shriek" was an absolute, like "perfect" and "unique."

    Parent
    Some shrieks... (none / 0) (#204)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    ...are more equal than others.

     : - )

    Parent

    What expert confirmed ZIM was the person (none / 0) (#144)
    by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:42:06 AM EST
    SCREAMING witness #6 (?) i believe said he assumed no one actually saw and since (according to George) his nose and mouth were covered a constant unmuffled 45sec scream heard over the phone is far fetched and according to 2 experts not George Zimmerman

    Parent
    Screaming before the first 911 call.. (none / 0) (#203)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    ..., which came in at 7:16:11 PM, would not have been recorded, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, though, not having been there myself, I can only say it did not start before 7:13:39 PM.

    Parent
    Oh, what a society has evolved unto us. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Leopold on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 05:10:02 PM EST
    Eventually been forced to kill another human being.


    Parent
    Yes, with the alternative being... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Jello333 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:45:35 AM EST
    ... to possibly be killed yourself. Very sad, but it looks like that's what it came down to. I've said several times that the whole "this wouldn't have happened if Zimmerman didn't have a gun" argument is misleading. While it's true that Trayvon would not have been shot by George, that is ALL we know. Had he not shot Trayvon when he did, George might have wound up dead or in a coma, etc. And since the cops arrived only a minute later, Trayvon would have AT A MINIMUM been arrested for aggravated battery, or possibly much worse. And there's even the possibility that Trayvon would have STILL wound up dead. If he was still beating George when the cops arrived, and he refused to stop when ordered, he could easily have gotten himself shot... not by GZ, but by the cops.

    Parent
    Why would TM have been arrested? (none / 0) (#147)
    by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:53:50 AM EST
    you are assuming TM started or would have said he started the confrontation the 911 call up to the confrontation would have shown he was pursued.

    Parent
    he likely would have been arrested (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:33:01 AM EST
    for beating George Zimmerman had he not died.

    You can't respond to being followed with a punch in the nose. It's called assault and battery.

    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--

    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

    There's no evidence Zimmerman was going to imminently use force against Trayvon when Trayvon hit him. Zimmerman had the injuries to show Trayvon attacked him. Had Martin not died, he would probably have been arrested.

    If charged, he might have argued he reasonably feared Zimmerman was about to attack him, but there's no evidence of that. A jury would have made that determination.

    It was not a crime for Zimmerman to report a person he found suspicious, to get out his car to see which way he went, or even, had he done so (which he denies) to have followed Trayvon.

    Parent

    Arrested ain't convicted (none / 0) (#208)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    If Martin lived and said "Dude grabbed my right arm or he'd still be down. I thought he was going for a knife, so I decked him with my left.", how would that be proven not to be true?

    (Martin's mother says he was right-handed, and the cut on Zimmerman's face suggests getting hit on the right by someone's left hand)

    Parent

    I was wondering how long it would be before (none / 0) (#210)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    (Martin's mother says he was right-handed, and the cut on Zimmerman's face suggests getting hit on the right by someone's left hand)

    this was pointed out...  


    Parent

    All that is possible (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:39:49 AM EST
    It is also possible that given another 30 secs to 1 minute to assess the situation, the neighbors would have realized they could help George since TM appeared to be unarmed.  Or distract TM enough by telling him the police were coming that GZ could get away. Any number of alternative scenarios that do not end in death for anyone.

    Parent
    All sorts of unrealized possibilities (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:55:00 AM EST
    Assuming it's true that Martin became aware of a gun on the scene, and moved as if to obtain control of it - if THAT event hadn't happened, maybe Zimmerman would have persisted in his forgetting he had a gun, and Martin would have "finished" and left the scene in another 10 seconds.

    I don't think any of the neighbors were going to physically intervene.  Even John holed up upstairs after telling Martin that he (John) was calling the cops, and he seems to have been the most brave of the lot.  There is no evidence of appearance of being armed, in the first place - no neighbor reports it anyway, they think it's a simple fight, and still they (wisely) avoid getting involved.  Call the cops and wait.

    Parent

    What GZ should have done: (none / 0) (#166)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:10:48 AM EST
    Call the cops and wait.


    Parent
    Beg to differ... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    Dude shoulda minded his own business and went shopping like he planned.  Preferably leaving the gun at home.

    Dropping a dime was his second mistake, after the first mistake of immediately assuming the kid in a hoodie was up to no good just because the neighborhood has had some break-ins.

    Parent

    That's what he did (4.00 / 3) (#168)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:40:43 AM EST
    Should John have stayed inside his unit, or was it okay for him to open the door and tell the fighters he was calling the cops?

    In hindsight, it was okay, because his act wasn't in a chain of events that led to a bad conclusion.  But what if we examine that with a "what could have happened" attitude?

    Zimmerman got out of his truck and lost sight of Martin.  There is no evidence that he endeavored to get close to Martin.  A reasonable person in Zimmerman's shoes would not expect a fleeing person to seek close contact.  He gets out of his truck to see if he can spot "the guy's" exit route.

    In hindsight, this was not okay, because "the guy" came back.  Is that Zimmerman's fault?

    FWIW, I know you don't have a consistent standard of review, other than you are going to judge in hindsight.  If it's your bacon in the fire, you are going to either be glad somebody didn't follow your "just call the cops and wait" standard, or you are going to wish they hadn't.  

    And likewise if you use force, and are charged with a crime for the use of force.  I bet dollars to donuts you'd claim you were justified.  Well, let's just charge you, so we can have a trial and see.

    Parent

    No. He should have stayed in his vehicle and (none / 0) (#171)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    let the police handle the situation.

    I have been in a life or death situation, and yes, it did involve a gun controlled by the other person.  So you don't need to try to lecture me on what to do or how one should respond.  I've been there.  

    Parent

    It's about the community response (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    I wasn't lecturing you about how you choose to respond.  You do whatever suits yourself.

    My point was speculation that your "standard" is flexible, depending on whose ox is being gored.  It was looking at how the community should respond to your distress (or maybe a child of yours), if you (or your child) actually have any, and how you might judge the community for standing by and watching, after calling the police.

    Parent

    Further, once he called police, he (none / 0) (#173)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    could have called (1) whoever was on watch patrol that night, if there was anyone, (2) whoever was in charge of getting the neighborhood notified by phone that there might be something going on, if they had such a plan/procedure, (3) the neighbors in the general vicinity of the direction he saw Martin heading.

    Oh, but I keep forgetting that Zimmerman didn't know where he was in the three streets that comprised the neighborhood he'd lived in for several years and regularly patrolled.

    I would love to know if there was an inventory taken of Zimmerman's truck and if he had any kind of neighborhood directory, or roster of people in the watch program.

    There are a lot of things it is legal to do - there was nothing legally wrong with Zimmerman getting out of his truck - but that doesn't make them the smart thing to do, and there was nothing smart about Zimmerman getting out of his truck.

    Parent

    IF his story is true (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:15:23 AM EST
    And he was walking back to the truck and Martin attacked him, how do you know he wasn't going to  do just that - call the neighborhood watch or local neighbors?

    Parent
    Why wouldn't George have said that's (none / 0) (#178)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    what he was going to do: "I wanted to get back to my truck and call the watch patrol and get started on calling the residents, because I was worried about what might be happening and I wanted people to be on alert."

    I think the answer is that he wasn't thinking at all about what he had been allegedly trained to do or what the watch patrol protocol - if there even was one - called for him to do at that point.

    Parent

    Do (none / 0) (#175)
    by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:20:47 AM EST
    you think he knew he was in a life or death situation when he left the car? Leaving the car ended up being a mistake, but not a crime.

    Parent
    Maybe he thought he was in effect ASKED... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Jello333 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:56:32 PM EST
    ... to get out of the truck. Ever think of that? "Alright, just let me know if this guy does anything else." And, "He's running? Which way is he running?" Are those two statements by the dispatcher not pretty close to, "Try to keep an eye on him till the cops arrive."? And the only way George could do THAT is, you guessed it: Get out of his truck and head in the general direction Trayvon headed.

    Parent
    Try this. (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    "We don't need you to do that."

    Parent
    I think this point is a big confrontational issue (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:30:30 PM EST
    in this case.

    Zimmerman was already out of his car or truck when he has told he did not need to follow.  He was told he did not need to follow "after" the NE dispatcher had already asked him to let them know if Martin did anything else.  

    Many think Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, but there is no evidence yet released of this.

    Parent

    What's "society" got to do with it? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:42:06 AM EST


    Parent
    So one would think, but there are (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    a lot of people sitting in prison who might disagree with you.

    I think it's a terrible decision, and it makes me think O'Mara's more concerned about pumping up the donations so he can get paid than he is about keeping his client out of prison.

    Parent

    O'Mara told Zimmerman via phone (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    that Zimmerman would probably not be able to work for the rest of his life.  [snk.]

    Parent
    Would you hire him? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:13:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:14:28 PM EST


    Parent
    I would hate to have the days of my worst (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:29:26 PM EST
    judgement calls on the national news for all future employers to see, but there it is.

    Parent
    Actually, I thought you meant (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    would I hire Mr. O'Mara.  I'm sure there are employment opportunities for Mr. Zimmerman if he is vindicated.  NRA spokesperson.  Fox News analyst.  Write a book.  Run for public office.  Start a blog.  

    Parent
    Yeah, that might last him awhile (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:41:39 PM EST


    Parent
    You know what? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    He might be more interested in pumping up donations so that he can be paid 'cause maybe he thinks his client is a lost cause anyway.

    Parent
    Zimmerman's spending (none / 0) (#81)
    by expy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    detailed here:
    $36K spent in 18 days

    Parent
    Yeah, Zimmerman "spent"... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:34:50 AM EST
    ... "almost $4,000 on [[his]] American Express [[balance]] alone", "paid off a $3,000 loan to his parents, paid $5,000 for bond, spent $800 at the jail commissary and $600 on jailhouse calling cards. The couple spent about $1,300 on food and $400 on utilities and $1,900 on rent..." Livin' high on the hog, he was, "spending" like crazy.

    Parent
    How's that workin' out for him ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    All he has to do is tell the truth and he'll be fine.

    ... so far?

    Parent

    I don't recall (none / 0) (#83)
    by friendofinnocence on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:57:04 PM EST
    his telling the truth causing any problems.

    Parent
    Without delving into the Zimmerman threads, (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    do you recall if the first assigned judge ordered the parties and counsel not to talk to the media?

    Parent
    gag order requested, but denied by judge (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Philly on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    see here

    Parent
    No, I really don't. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    If I watch the interview at all, I think I will do so using the two-minute rule; I'm sure that will be enough time for me to tell whether Zimmerman and/or O'Mara are credible.

    Parent
    No gag order, although prosecution (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    requested one:  Orlando Sentinel

    Parent
    He's going on Hannity... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:30:54 PM EST
    all he's gonna get are softball fluff questions.

    GZ sure knows how to pick 'em boy...Hannity, Terry "Book Burner" Jones...if the company you keep is any judge of character, 'nuff said.

    Parent

    I was actually impressed... (none / 0) (#95)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:51:39 PM EST
    ...by the way Zimmerman used religion to back Jones into a corner where he had to back off from his idiotic idea for a "make George look even worse" rally.

    Parent
    That was a sign of some intelligence... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    I'll grant him that...but when he asked the book burner to come pray with him instead, I wanted to hurl.

    I'd have been really impressed if he told the hate monger to get lost and to leave him alone, he's got enough problems.

    Parent

    Agreed, (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Tamta on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:50:40 PM EST
    and it's pre-recorded!

    Parent
    The only time it appears (none / 0) (#115)
    by Darby on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    Omara intervened was related to bond hearing/perjury questions . I don't get why those are taboo but questions about a case he is currently a defendant in are okay., but that was his position

    I thought it was boring because it is the same story we have heard from the beginning. Everyone is waiting for the smoking gun, which it appears doesn't exist.

    Parent

    O'Mara intervened because (none / 0) (#142)
    by FroggieLeggs on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:31:06 AM EST
    of Shellie's pending case. How would it be for George to talk about the exact thing the S.A. is using to charge her with? Also if you listened carefully, O'Mara also says the state could charge George with perjury tooo per comment from judge on his ruling for bond. It would be a stupid move for anyone in George's camp to say anything about it at this time.

    Kind of like waiting for the smoking gun from the state that doesn't seem to exist.

    Parent

    fundraiser (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Philly on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    Smells like a fundraiser to steer viewers towards the defense fund website.  I'll be surprised if the questions directed to George aren't all cleared in advance, with him reading from a teleprompter.

    Prerecorded interview (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Dilbert By Day on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    Plenty of time for prudent, if not creative editing. I'd give my eye teeth to see what they leave on the cutting room floor.

    And now I'm questioning the actual depth of Zimmerman's donor pool.  

    Parent

    JMO they don't have (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by fredquick21 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:57:36 PM EST
    anything to rebut witness #9's cm allegations or those JH calls other than george zimmerman's word so they are in damage control especially since People Mags response of no contact with witness #9. Also this is pre-recorded for a reason IMO george zimmerman's mouth has caused all of his problems since the shooting. i won't watch as my opinion of MoM can't get any worse and i'm not a donator

    It was all God's plan? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:09:58 PM EST
    Zimmerman shares some common ground with Sybrina, apparently.

    "It's so easy for me to cry right now, but I can't because I have work to do," she told the congregation. "I was forced into this position, but I believe God is using me." Sybrina Fulton

    "But now I know that God has called Trayvon. He was chosen." Sybrina Fulton

    "God is in control." Sybrina Fulton

    Ah, (none / 0) (#179)
    by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:29:11 AM EST
    the lies the religious tell themselves to get through tragedy.

    Parent
    How offensive (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:37:20 AM EST


    Parent
    Well that's just great (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:15:35 PM EST
    Chants of no justice, no peace have no meaning then I assume.

    It's either "no meaning" or "violence".  Wow.

    I am simply stating that...... (none / 0) (#218)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:14:05 PM EST
    Your reply of "Oh Please" to my comment stating that chants of "No justice, no peace" may have been part of the reason that some Sanford Police officers were concerned about the potential (I say "potential") for riots if Zimmerman was not arrested.

    I am not claiming that riots will occur, but that some officers may have feared this and conveyed this to others in the police dept.

    What is so hard to understand about this?  

    Parent

    no WOW about it - You (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:15:44 PM EST
    seem to be the biased one over the top here.

    Apologies Jeralyn for insulting another poster and feel free to delete.

    Parent

    Funny Thing (1.50 / 2) (#73)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:06:58 PM EST
    If Martin's parents went on Hannity and answered questions it would be tampering with the jury pool.

    But it is cool if Martin does it.

    I think you mean Zimmerman (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    As far as I can tell, either side is free to go out and tell their story to the public.  Sybrina and Tracy have been out in public, and I know of nothing preventing them from giving interviews on the telly or radio.  A brother (not Chad) has been out, too, IIRC months ago.

    Parent
    Brandi and Chad have, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Tamta on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    link.

    Parent
    Trayvon Martin can't (4.50 / 8) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:20:15 PM EST


    Parent
    the state speaks for (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 08:31:41 PM EST
    the victim

    Parent
    Imagine the ratings... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:53:59 PM EST
    ...if they could get Martin to appear.

    Parent
    Even funnier (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by FroggieLeggs on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:39:58 AM EST
    The Martin's can run the talk show circuit a few times since this happened even flying to London to do some. Yet George shouldn't do even 1 interview.

    Parent
    Are you playing ignorant? (3.50 / 2) (#76)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:45:21 PM EST
    The Martin's have been interview numerous times. My favorite is the one where Sybrina admitted she believed the shooting was an accident.

    "One of the things that I still believe in, a person should apologize when they are actually remorseful for what they've done. I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back. I would ask him, did he know that that was a minor, that that was a teenager, and that he did not have a weapon?"

    Then Zimmerman put himself at considerable risk by going on the stand just to address these specific questions. Team Martin responded by criticizing and chastising GZ.


    Parent

    Hearts and flowers. Quite touching. (3.67 / 3) (#86)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 05:48:34 PM EST


    Parent
    So, the speculation was that Hannity is the (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    SH mentioned in phone call #30 from the recent package, who was going to contribute to the defense fund if Jose Baez was the lawyer. I wonder if the interview was contingent on a contribution to the defense fund.

    Nope (none / 0) (#114)
    by Darby on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:06:07 PM EST
    Seanity or fox news deny any payments in exchange for an interview or anything else


    Parent
    I'll have to listen to it tonight (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:08:18 PM EST
    Even more sad that I missed it this morning, I have to write.  And my brain virtually explodes at this point. I got my assignment last night so then its research, research, research, and it must start throwing something out or explode :)  It feels like a juggernaut up there.  I realized that I missed a lot of news that was important to me before, but probably because who wants to feel like this without a specific reason to do it to yourself?

    We don't let our television stray to the (none / 0) (#20)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    Hannity/Faux News channel so I'll just have to pass on this one even though it does seem enticing.

    I hate Faux "News" too (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jello333 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:55:12 PM EST
    I have for over a decade. But over the past year or so, MSNBC has been just as much a propaganda mouthpiece for Obama as Faux was for Bush. Pretty much since Keith left MSNBC the place has been worthless. And as for the anti-Zimmerman Scheme Team push, MSNBC has probably been the worse. Some of the few and far between fair stories about this case have, sadly, been on Faux. So of course that's where he'd naturally go for an interview. I hear that George is a Democrat; if so, he's probably not a fan of that channel either. But I can also understand if George has been doing a little soul-searching, seeing how it's mostly been "liberals" who have been calling for his head. (Again, I repeat, I am a liberal, but I find what many of my fellow libs are doing to this man DISGUSTING.)

    Parent
    I didn't get to avoid it (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    CNN violated me with it!

    Parent
    Just out of curiosity (none / 0) (#30)
    by friendofinnocence on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:31:24 PM EST
    Would it be possible for Zimmerman to get this interview into evidence at an SYG hearing or trial in which he is not planning to testify?

    Bernie said they weren't going to introduce Zimmerman's statements and force him to introduce them, which would require him to take the stand.

    You're assuming that the interview is (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    going to help Zimmerman; I think I'd reserve judgment until it's actually aired.  And then, you might want to hope that it isn't damaging, because in the Sandusky case, his interview with Bob Costas ended up being used by the prosecution - and Sandusky never took the stand.

    Parent
    Anne (none / 0) (#84)
    by friendofinnocence on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    I'm not assuming anything.  I just asked a question hoping one of the local legal experts would answer because I'm wonder what motivated this interview.  They showed a screen-capture, so it has already been recorded - when, I don't know.  

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#177)
    by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:27:21 AM EST
    Zimmerman honestly thinks that he was justified and can't shut up about it. He thinks he can explain all of the outrage away.

    Parent
    Lord I hope not (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    Your honor, I would like to substitute recorded/edited, unsworn, softball questions and answers with Sean Hannity for actual real-time testimony under oath. That ok?

    Parent
    Zimmerman, NO (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by bmaz on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:56:54 PM EST
    ...but if he trips on his own dick in the process, the state can likely find an evidentiary path to use it.

    Parent
    I can't find any indication Pres. Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    has subsequently "clarified" that remark.  

    "Fool me once..." (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    or so someone once tried to say before turning it into a Spoonerism.

    Not to worry, I'm sure we'll be getting plenty of WORM.

    Parent

    IANAL so can a Lawyer explain (none / 0) (#45)
    by fredquick21 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:00:48 PM EST
    how this pre-recocded interview helps a client wouldn't live be more believable even though live could also IMO sink the ship.?

    In won't come in as part of the defense (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    case, unless there are portions the court rules are admissions against defendant's interest/confession.  Those parts would be admissible against defendant, and possibly some other portions for context.    

    Parent
    Actually, I should have sd. it (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    Shouldn't come in in Zimmerman's direct case.  Lots of crap that shouldn't come in, does.  

    Parent
    This is Off topic but (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    I'll leave it.

    But stay on topic please.

    Sorry I deleted the off-topic (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:39:00 PM EST
    comments before seeing you said they could stay. I didn't realize you were monitoring the thread.

    Parent
    I should have (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:06:48 AM EST


    Parent
    Quick Peek. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Tamta on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:35:57 PM EST
    Hannity

    Hannity Interview, My Take (none / 0) (#117)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:24:31 PM EST
    Here are the things that stuck out for me and the questions they raise:

    1. Z carries his gun all the time except when he goes to work.  Is this standard for CCW permit holders?  

    2. He started screaming for help right after he got hit in the nose.  Is this in accord with the ear witnesses?

    3. He was trying to direct the cops to where he was by his screams.  Now that does make sense!

    4. Martin was cursing him and telling him to shut up during the screams.

    5. Martin switched from banging his head on the concrete to smothering him shortly before the shot since his head was no longer on the concrete.  On at least one earlier interview Zimmerman said Martin was going to bang his head on the concrete again just before he shot him.  Do the screams have any indication that their was a switch between banging and smothering?


    All the time except (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Dilbert By Day on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:09:29 PM EST
    "1. Z carries his gun all the time except when he goes to work.  Is this standard for CCW permit holders?"

    To the best my knowledge, Z wasn't working on the evening of the shooting; he was shopping.

    If he's a strident CCW who 'carries his gun all the time except,' how did he manage to forget that he had a fully loaded 9mm mounted on his hip when he encountered Trayvon Martin?

     

    Parent

    "Forgetting" he had the gun on his (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:02:00 AM EST
    person and "forgetting" the street names in a three-street subdivision in which he's lived for quite some time as well as patrolled as the watch guy - yeah, I'd say he's either really forgetful or isn't being truthful.

    Parent
    Transcript available (none / 0) (#119)
    by J Upchurch on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:33:53 PM EST
    They have the transcript online

    The link button doesn't seem to work (none / 0) (#120)
    by J Upchurch on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:35:08 PM EST
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity

    Parent
    @Cashmere re No justice, no peace (none / 0) (#222)
    by Mary2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 04:54:54 PM EST
    Not sure if this thread is closed at 191 posts but the reply buttons are gone.  I believe I figured out a way to keep this relatively short (well, sort of; it was longer initially) & will save it in case it's deleted and re-post it another time.

    -----------

    Cashmere, the questions posed below are rhetorical questions:

    No justice, no peace.

    First, some questions:

    If someone treats you unjustly, do you feel (at) peace?  Others might not be aware of your situation or circumstance but that doesn't mean you haven't suffered an injustice, does it?

    Do you automatically become violent as a result or do you try to get your grievances addressed and/ or rectified through proper channels - assuming those channels aren't blocked to you in some way, that is?

    If the channels are not blocked to you and you utilize them, you'll either find out you were indeed wronged or you really weren't wronged after all and why.  Either result may not "undo" the wrong you believe you suffered but using the available avenues - assuming the avenues were fair/ transparent & not phony -- may help you get started at arriving at some measure of peace, wouldn't it?

    But, suppose those channels are blocked to you? (For whatever reason)  Would you feel (at) peace then because the channels for justice were blocked?  IOW, someone treated you unjustly or wronged you in some fashion but now in addition the necessary channels for your seeking justice are blocked to you as well.  Does that somehow magically bring you peace anyway?  

    I would think not.

    ------------

    In the context of society

    Wherever there are injustices in society, there is no peace.  You may or may not be aware of the injustices but it doesn't mean they don't exist or that they are "exaggerated" or "made up" or due to the fault of those experiencing the injustice(s).

    Those oblivious to the plight of fellow citizens and the injustices they are enduring might therefore tend to view society as "peaceful" and tend to take "the sky is falling!" approach at the first sight of protests; perhaps even think others are trying to "take" something away from them.

    Those not oblivious to injustices suffered by others & of course those suffering the injustices first-hand, have no real or true peace and tend to see things differently, and will look for ways to help out in any way they can and add their voice of support, including joining protests, marches, rallies in an attempt to seek justice.

    It does not mean there will be violence.  I don't know who said it or exactly how it was worded but, in effect, `if you want (true) peace, you must work for justice.'  `No justice, no peace.'  The two sayings can be seen as variants of each other.

    Meaningful, peaceful, resolution/ change are key here and the above is how it is obtained (protests, etc).  Blocking those channels and/ or making meaningful peaceful resolution impossible to achieve, are what will lead to violence, which in turn, brings us to "riots".

    Riots

    "Riots" occur when channels for meaningful peaceful change/resolution are non-existent, failed, or blocked.  

    As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it, "A riot is the language of the unheard."

    As such, it would seem that anyone desiring to avoid the potential for "rioting" would do what they can to ensure that all Americans' voices are heard (i.e., including that they be able to vote, for example), that our institutions (including police departments, for example) work for all people, all people are able to seek justice when they feel they've been treated unjustly, etc., i.e., you know: "all men are created equal", "liberty and justice for all" and all that?

    -------------

    With respect to TM-GZ case:

    Telling parents their un-armed teenager was shot, the same teen they know to be non-violent and college-bound, was shot and killed and there's no recourse for them because the same person who shot him is claiming self-defense -- I don't think would float for most people finding themselves in that situation.  Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin feel Trayvon's life was unjustly taken.  Many in society agree with them.

    No justice, no peace.

    Justice (if this case makes it to court) in this case will be a full transparent hearing in court (as Sgt. Barns stated, in effect, to the FBI: "The AA community will be satisfied if an arrest takes place....") re exactly what happened that night, an `airing' of both sides of the story.  The defense (perhaps GZ himself) will present GZs side and the State of FL will present Trayvon Martin's (the People's) side.

    This is not a "railroading" of GZ or "finding him guilty by hook or by crook" or even a "political railroading" or a "rush to judgment" or whatever GZ supporters have been calling it -- far from it.  GZ exercised what he believed were his right to carry, shoot & kill.  He claims he did so justifiably in self-defense but was he truly justified in shooting the un-armed teenager, Trayvon Martin, or did he, George Zimmerman have a "rush to judgment" of his own?

    GZ supporters may find it very hard to believe but there are a lot of people that don't find George Zimmerman credible or his story believable and are amazed that anyone would.  GZ supporters like to quote what Inv. Serino said as some kind of proof for their feelings on the case, in effect, GZ's story is the `best fit we have for the evidence.'

    "Best fit we have" doesn't mean "airtight" or that there aren't any (big) problems with his story.  Suppose it turns out that TM's story is a much better fit, in fact (manner of speaking) the "only real fit" for all the evidence?  I'm not saying that's what will happen but it could very well be that way (depending on what the State has) and if so, it would be an injustice IMO not to hear Trayvon Martin's side.

    Re "riots" after the verdict not wanted, or however it was worded:  If I'm not mistaken, Sgt. Barns' comments to the FBI were made before there was an arrest and had nothing to do re whether one verdict or another is reached (should the case make it to trial, and hopefully, IMO, it does).  

    I find it odd (none / 0) (#223)
    by Amiss on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:57:21 AM EST
    That while Hannity was conducting his interview that GZ had Barbara Walters and an entire news crew sitting in another room for another scheduled interview. Walters said on "The View" the next morning that GZ wanted her to do something that ABC could not in all good conscience do. So he cancelled the interview after they had been kept waiting all that time by GZ who had asked for them to come down specifically to do the interview.

    She also said that he had already changed out of his suit BEFORE coming out. So he had no intentions of doing the interview after HE had been the one who had requested it.

    Hannity Interviews Zimmerman | 193 comments (193 topical)