Martin/Zimmerman thread

It's pretty damn scary in my opinion how the media can create their own version of the facts in these kinds of cases, and their repeated misrepresentations are then used by politicians and others (including several people who have posted in this thread) to justify outrage at what happened. There are several examples of this in this case, including outright dishonesty (e.g., NBC's doctoring of the 911 audiotape to make it appear that Zimmerman brought up Martin's race unprompted) and obvious attempts to produce a racial narrative favored by the speaker (e.g., the NY Times' description of Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic"--does that mean Obama is a white Negro, or a black Caucasian?). But the worst and most enduring example in this case is the continued repetition of the "fact" that the "police" told or "ordered" Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and if he had only obeyed, the incident would not have happened. This is the conclusion of a Washington Post editorial on the verdict this morning, a year and a half after the incident, and of course after all the evidence was presented at trial:

 

Mr. Zimmerman’s attorney called the prosecution “disgraceful.” But we think it was valuable that the case was aired in an open court before a fair-minded judge and decided by a jury that appeared to be careful and take its time. Guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and Mr. Zimmerman is free to resume his life even as his attorney lamented that it “will never be the same.”

 

That also is as it should be. Mr. Zimmerman could have done what police told him to do and stayed in his vehicle. No one would have heard about him — and Trayvon Martin could have been able to get home on that rainy Sunday evening.

 

The next to last sentence of this conclusion, from one of the most supposedly revered media outlets in the United States, is wrong or sloppy on so many levels that it's hard to imagine one could pack so much misinformation into one sentence.

 

First, a 911 dispatcher isn't "police." The dispatchers aren't LEO's, and in most places I'm familiar with they aren't even under the control of a local LE organization. They simply take and pass along information, and the local LE organizations then decide how to act on it. So the "police" didn't tell Zimmerman anything while he was on the phone with 911.

 

Second, what the dispatcher said was not "stop following him" or "don't do that" but rather "we don't need you to do that." That is not a command but an ambiguous observation, but it has been reported as "stop following him" by nearly every media outlet in America at one point or another.

 

Third, Zimmerman was already out of his car and was walking around looking for Martin when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that," so this particular misrepresentation of the statement ("stay in your car") is even more off-base than the more common "stop following him."

 

And finally, Zimmerman's reply to the dispatcher's observation was simply "Ok," and according to his subsequent statements he then headed back toward his car, and Martin jumped him on the way. We'll never know whether that is true or not, but there was certainly no evidence introduced at the trial to prove otherwise.

 

So there was no command, it wasn't given by the police, and as far as anyone now alive knows Zimmerman nevertheless tried to comply with the dispatcher's suggestion. Yet people continue to claim that Zimmerman was some sort of determined vigilante who ignored what the police told him and continued to stalk Martin until he found him and killed him. Mind-boggling.

 

Sorry for the rant, but this particular issue has really become the primary theme of the anti-Zimmerman crowd, and I can't believe it has survived this long.

It's pretty damn scary in my opinion how the media can create their own version of the facts in these kinds of cases, and their repeated misrepresentations are then used by politicians and others (including several people who have posted in this thread) to justify outrage at what happened. There are several examples of this in this case, including outright dishonesty (e.g., NBC's doctoring of the 911 audiotape to make it appear that Zimmerman brought up Martin's race unprompted) and obvious attempts to produce a racial narrative favored by the speaker (e.g., the NY Times' description of Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic"--does that mean Obama is a white Negro, or a black Caucasian?). But the worst and most enduring example in this case is the continued repetition of the "fact" that the "police" told or "ordered" Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and if he had only obeyed, the incident would not have happened. This is the conclusion of a Washington Post editorial on the verdict this morning, a year and a half after the incident, and of course after all the evidence was presented at trial:

 

 

 

The next to last sentence of this conclusion, from one of the most supposedly revered media outlets in the United States, is wrong or sloppy on so many levels that it's hard to imagine one could pack so much misinformation into one sentence.

 

First, a 911 dispatcher isn't "police." The dispatchers aren't LEO's, and in most places I'm familiar with they aren't even under the control of a local LE organization. They simply take and pass along information, and the local LE organizations then decide how to act on it. So the "police" didn't tell Zimmerman anything while he was on the phone with 911.

 

Second, what the dispatcher said was not "stop following him" or "don't do that" but rather "we don't need you to do that." That is not a command but an ambiguous observation, but it has been reported as "stop following him" by nearly every media outlet in America at one point or another.

 

Third, Zimmerman was already out of his car and was walking around looking for Martin when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that," so this particular misrepresentation of the statement ("stay in your car") is even more off-base than the more common "stop following him."

 

And finally, Zimmerman's reply to the dispatcher's observation was simply "Ok," and according to his subsequent statements he then headed back toward his car, and Martin jumped him on the way. We'll never know whether that is true or not, but there was certainly no evidence introduced at the trial to prove otherwise.

 

So there was no command, it wasn't given by the police, and as far as anyone now alive knows Zimmerman nevertheless tried to comply with the dispatcher's suggestion. Yet people continue to claim that Zimmerman was some sort of determined vigilante who ignored what the police told him and continued to stalk Martin until he found him and killed him. Mind-boggling.

 

Sorry for the rant, but this particular issue has really become the primary theme of the anti-Zimmerman crowd, and I can't believe it has survived this long.

How dare you bring level headed statements in this debate fueled by emotion!!!!!

It's pretty damn scary in my opinion how the media can create their own version of the facts in these kinds of cases, and their repeated misrepresentations are then used by politicians and others (including several people who have posted in this thread) to justify outrage at what happened. There are several examples of this in this case, including outright dishonesty (e.g., NBC's doctoring of the 911 audiotape to make it appear that Zimmerman brought up Martin's race unprompted) and obvious attempts to produce a racial narrative favored by the speaker (e.g., the NY Times' description of Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic"--does that mean Obama is a white Negro, or a black Caucasian?). But the worst and most enduring example in this case is the continued repetition of the "fact" that the "police" told or "ordered" Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and if he had only obeyed, the incident would not have happened. This is the conclusion of a Washington Post editorial on the verdict this morning, a year and a half after the incident, and of course after all the evidence was presented at trial:

 

 

 

The next to last sentence of this conclusion, from one of the most supposedly revered media outlets in the United States, is wrong or sloppy on so many levels that it's hard to imagine one could pack so much misinformation into one sentence.

 

First, a 911 dispatcher isn't "police." The dispatchers aren't LEO's, and in most places I'm familiar with they aren't even under the control of a local LE organization. They simply take and pass along information, and the local LE organizations then decide how to act on it. So the "police" didn't tell Zimmerman anything while he was on the phone with 911.

 

Second, what the dispatcher said was not "stop following him" or "don't do that" but rather "we don't need you to do that." That is not a command but an ambiguous observation, but it has been reported as "stop following him" by nearly every media outlet in America at one point or another.

 

Third, Zimmerman was already out of his car and was walking around looking for Martin when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that," so this particular misrepresentation of the statement ("stay in your car") is even more off-base than the more common "stop following him."

 

And finally, Zimmerman's reply to the dispatcher's observation was simply "Ok," and according to his subsequent statements he then headed back toward his car, and Martin jumped him on the way. We'll never know whether that is true or not, but there was certainly no evidence introduced at the trial to prove otherwise.

 

So there was no command, it wasn't given by the police, and as far as anyone now alive knows Zimmerman nevertheless tried to comply with the dispatcher's suggestion. Yet people continue to claim that Zimmerman was some sort of determined vigilante who ignored what the police told him and continued to stalk Martin until he found him and killed him. Mind-boggling.

 

Sorry for the rant, but this particular issue has really become the primary theme of the anti-Zimmerman crowd, and I can't believe it has survived this long.

 

 

 

One of the best post's in this entire thread.

 

 

It's pretty damn scary in my opinion how the media can create their own version of the facts in these kinds of cases, and their repeated misrepresentations are then used by politicians and others (including several people who have posted in this thread) to justify outrage at what happened. There are several examples of this in this case, including outright dishonesty (e.g., NBC's doctoring of the 911 audiotape to make it appear that Zimmerman brought up Martin's race unprompted) and obvious attempts to produce a racial narrative favored by the speaker (e.g., the NY Times' description of Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic"--does that mean Obama is a white Negro, or a black Caucasian?). But the worst and most enduring example in this case is the continued repetition of the "fact" that the "police" told or "ordered" Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and if he had only obeyed, the incident would not have happened. This is the conclusion of a Washington Post editorial on the verdict this morning, a year and a half after the incident, and of course after all the evidence was presented at trial:

 

 

 

The next to last sentence of this conclusion, from one of the most supposedly revered media outlets in the United States, is wrong or sloppy on so many levels that it's hard to imagine one could pack so much misinformation into one sentence.

 

First, a 911 dispatcher isn't "police." The dispatchers aren't LEO's, and in most places I'm familiar with they aren't even under the control of a local LE organization. They simply take and pass along information, and the local LE organizations then decide how to act on it. So the "police" didn't tell Zimmerman anything while he was on the phone with 911.

 

Second, what the dispatcher said was not "stop following him" or "don't do that" but rather "we don't need you to do that." That is not a command but an ambiguous observation, but it has been reported as "stop following him" by nearly every media outlet in America at one point or another.

 

Third, Zimmerman was already out of his car and was walking around looking for Martin when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that," so this particular misrepresentation of the statement ("stay in your car") is even more off-base than the more common "stop following him."

 

And finally, Zimmerman's reply to the dispatcher's observation was simply "Ok," and according to his subsequent statements he then headed back toward his car, and Martin jumped him on the way. We'll never know whether that is true or not, but there was certainly no evidence introduced at the trial to prove otherwise.

 

So there was no command, it wasn't given by the police, and as far as anyone now alive knows Zimmerman nevertheless tried to comply with the dispatcher's suggestion. Yet people continue to claim that Zimmerman was some sort of determined vigilante who ignored what the police told him and continued to stalk Martin until he found him and killed him. Mind-boggling.

 

Sorry for the rant, but this particular issue has really become the primary theme of the anti-Zimmerman crowd, and I can't believe it has survived this long.

 

Slow Clap. Great post.

 

 

Slow Clap. Great post.

 

I'm not attacking Treyvon Martin here, but the 'he's a person' argument in general.

 

My main point is that he's a human being and that there is some value in that. I'm not particularly a fan of the "everyone is a person argument" in general, and the situation is really tragic no matter how you slice it.

 

Thank goodness for "hoes and dreams"

There has been a lot of discussion about how GZ followed Martin and how he provoked a conflict. This was a pure self defense case and none of that has any bearing. Exchanging words, calling names, is no crime. Punching somebody in their face and beating the shit out of them is. The question was, at what point is it justified to use lethal force. The jury correctly decided, based on evidence, that when a person is on the ground, on their back, and getting their head slammed and face punched in, it is justified. Another concern is that your assailant may use your gun against you. Either way, fear for your life is appropriate and use of deadly force is justified. Period.

 

I am stunned how many people ignore the rule of law, misrepresent or make up facts, and believe justice should be based on an emotional responses and feelings. The injection of race is totally reprehensible.

There are so many ignorant idiots in this country, it is no wonder it is in the crapper.

There has been a lot of discussion about how GZ followed Martin and how he provoked a conflict. This was a pure self defense case and none of that has any bearing. Exchanging words, calling names, is no crime. Punching somebody in their face and beating the shit out of them is. The question was, at what point is it justified to use lethal force. The jury correctly decided, based on evidence, that when a person is on the ground, on their back, and getting their head slammed and face punched in, it is justified. Another concern is that your assailant may use your gun against you. Either way, fear for your life is appropriate and use of deadly force is justified. Period.

 

I am stunned how many people ignore the rule of law, misrepresent or make up facts, and believe justice should be based on an emotional responses and feelings. The injection of race is totally reprehensible.

There are so many ignorant idiots in this country, it is no wonder it is in the crapper.

 

At what point is deadly force necessary. He did wait until his nose was broken and his head was being struck against the ground. Would this even be a question of murder if Zimmerman was a woman? I am sure there are such cases where deadly force was used under a much less severe situation and the person was found not guilty as well.

pretty much sums it up

 

I want the Akron guy to narrate this podcast

Saw this

I was living in Charleston last year. Never watched local news but never heard this story talked about by anyone. It's a small enough town for stuff to float around.

 

Interesting.

I understand that it´s not illegal to follow someone, however, i don´t think it´s that easy. Put your self in his shoes. You´re 17(yes he might have been a badass gang member or an insecure little boy, all speculation, let´s leave this out) and are being followed by a grown up. I´d be scared shitless. In this situation it´s either fight or flight. So you´re running but can´t shake him off. What now? He might be a psychopath you really wanne let him now where you live? the next thing you can do is talk to him but then again you probably feel the adrenalin rushing out of fear already. What would you do?

I can understand that he was trying to beat the guy unconscious just to erase the threat(from a rational standpoint the only thing to do).

Now I´m not saying either one of them is guilty and the other one isn´t, just don´t understand how people can be so aggressively on one side( and I mean both sides, I can understand zimmermann to some extent too) without trying to put themselves in the shoes they´re judging.

It´s just a shitty situation and not so black and white(ironic?) as some would want this to be.

Would zimmermann not have gun he´d probably be in hospital and martin would still be alive, imho, a much better outcome than both having they´re lives ruined.

 

I understand that it´s not illegal to follow someone, however, i don´t think it´s that easy. Put your self in his shoes. You´re 17(yes he might have been a badass gang member or an insecure little boy, all speculation, let´s leave this out) and are being followed by a grown up. I´d be scared shitless. In this situation it´s either fight or flight. So you´re running but can´t shake him off. What now? He might be a psychopath you really wanne let him now where you live? the next thing you can do is talk to him but then again you probably feel the adrenalin rushing out of fear already. What would you do?

I can understand that he was trying to beat the guy unconscious just to erase the threat(from a rational standpoint the only thing to do).

Now I´m not saying either one of them is guilty and the other one isn´t, just don´t understand how people can be so aggressively on one side( and I mean both sides, I can understand zimmermann to some extent too) without trying to put themselves in the shoes they´re judging.

It´s just a shitty situation and not so black and white(ironic?) as some would want this to be.

Would zimmermann not have gun he´d probably be in hospital and martin would still be alive, imho, a much better outcome than both having they´re lives ruined.

Martin lost Zimmerman for 4 minutes. Martin came back to confront him. Out the door goes your little situation.

Ooops! Didn´t know that! Now that´s a game changer!

Martin lost Zimmerman for 4 minutes. Martin came back to confront him. Out the door goes your little situation.

 

That is what the racist groups leave out of the discussion.

 

During that timeframe, he called Zimmerman a "a crazy a$$ cracka"

Saw this

 

Cliff Notes of the Marley Lion case

 

- Intoxicated teen sleeps in car in parking lot.

- Four suspects plan to rob business he's parked at.

- Decide to rob him instead

- Kill Marley Lion

 

WEST ASHLEY, SC (WCSC) -

Names and personal information of witnesses in the murder case of a 17 year old will be protected.

 

Dozens of police officers went door-to-door serving warrants Monday afternoon in the Marley Lion murder investigation. Three men were arrested.

 

4 charged in connection with murder of Johns Island teen

 

Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said any identifying information of witnesses in the fatal shooting case of Marley Lion will be redacted.

 

Court officials had originally announced that a court hearing was scheduled on Wednesday for Ryan Deleston, who is accused of fatally shooting Lion at a parking lot in West Ashley last summer.

 

Wilson said both her office and defense attorneys agreed to redact personal information of witnesses who agreed to come forward and cooperate with what information they knew.

 

"This makes it a few steps harder for anyone out on the street to have this information and to put it together," Wilson said. "Is it impossible? No. But it makes it makes it not easy, it doesn't give them a layup, slam dunk for identifying people who frankly just don't need to be identified."

 

Court documents state Deleston said he, Julius Brown, and Bryan Rivers had actually planned to rob Famous Joe's during the early-morning hours of June 16, rather than anyone in the parking lot. Deleston told police Lion "interrupted their plan" so they decided to rob him instead.

 

Lion had pulled into the parking lot to take a nap inside his Nissan Pathfinder in the parking lot at 1662 Savannah Highway because he was "too intoxicated to drive," according to an incident report.

 

Ironically, the decision would prove fatal.

 

An affidavit states Julius Brown performed a "surveillance sweep" of the parking lot and Lion's vehicle, to determine the number of occupants and to check for any pedestrian presence.

 

Deleston said he and Rivers then attempted to carry out the robbery. Police say Deleston was the one who fired shots after Lion sounded the vehicle alarm.

 

Rivers told investigators during a July 30 interview, "He shot that white boy for nothing."

 

Since Charleston police say the attack was a coordinated effort, all three suspects were charged with murder and attempted armed robbery in addition to other charges.

 

The affidavit also clarifies the involvement of 27-year-old George Brown, who faces a charge of accessory after the fact of murder.

 

Court documents state George Brown brought the handgun which killed Lion to Deleston on July 15, just minutes before police purchased the murder weapon through a confidential informant.

 

At the time of his death, Lion had recently graduated from Academic Magnet High School and was set to attend Clemson University.

GTS well stated. Some interesting thoughts in this article as well.

 

http://www.bondaction.org/content/article/...illed%20Trayvon

You can't make this shit up!

 

Asked by CNN host Piers Morgan: “Is there’s anything you wished you said” on the witness stand?

 

“Nigga,” Jeantel responded.

I tried to watch that interview but only made it through the first few minutes. I'm not sure how that girl can even hold a normal conversation with anyone.

I tried to watch that interview but only made it through the first few minutes. I'm not sure how that girl can even hold a normal conversation with anyone.

 

I doubt she's conversing with 'normal' people, but those of similar education and intellect.

I tried to watch that interview but only made it through the first few minutes. I'm not sure how that girl can even hold a normal conversation with anyone.

They should just lock her away too