Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

[Chrisoc13]

The term white Hispanic has been around for years as a Census recognized designation combination of race and ethnicity, in that order. And yeah, the media just happened upon it in the last month.

In the 2010 United States Census, 50.5 million Americans (16.3% of the total population) listed themselves as ethnically Hispanic or Latino. Of those, 53.0% (26.7 million) self-identified as racially white.

Commonly used in the census, research and surveys, but how many times have you heard "white hispanic" actually used in describing someone in a news article before this case? I mean really this isn't that hard, I personally have never heard it outside of a census or research setting.

That would be the part where I mention that the media just happened upon it in the last month.

My mistake, thought you were being sarcastic. Then yes we agree.

[Grifman]

It is actually pretty difficult to (quickly) beat someone to death barehanded. You can kill people barehanded, but it's pretty obvious that's what you're trying to do; snapping the neck, using lethal chokeholds, that kind of thing. And, to be blunt, Zimmerman was not beaten, according to the physical evidence. He may have been struck, maybe even more than once, but he wasn't battered and bruised with broken ribs and bruised lungs. There's absolutely no (currently publicly available) evidence to support an accusation that the kid was out to kill Zimmerman. Especially since the phone conversation reported by his girlfriend had him as trying to escape the confrontation.

I agree that it isn't easy to kill someone bare handed but it's not impossible or unheard of. And the reality is quite different when you are laying on your back with a broken nose and bleeding from the back of your head. What will your assailant do to you if he knocks you out? Will he then choke you? Do something worse? But potential death isn't even the issue here as we shall see below.

The point is that there's absolutely no reason --including the physical evidence -- to believe that Trayvon really could have killed Zimmerman. He wasn't a street fighter, as far as we know.

Again, you make an irrelevant point. Zimmerman wouldn't know if he was a street fighter or not. Knowledge that Zimmerman wouldn't have is irrelevant to his decision. And potential death is not a requirement for self defense as we shall see below.

He wasn't at all muscular; as has been discussed in the thread, 140 pounds at 6'3" is skeletally thin and muscles weigh more than fat.

Agreed, but at night, the guy is wearing a loose fitting hoodie, you're getting beat around the face/head, your in pain, bleeding, and probably in shock, it's not going to be easy to make that determination, don't you agree?

He was completely unarmed, unless you're counting skittles as deadly weapons.

Yes, he's unarmed but that's pretty obvious if he's on top of you beating you with his fists. And irrelevant if your on the bottom taking the beating. And again, irrelevant for a self defense claim.

If he'd been 250 pounds and had actual history (even non-criminal history as in school records) of aggressive behavior and violence, or had he had a knife or gun of his own, sure. I wouldn't even be involved in this discussion. But the fact is, you're saying that self defense justifies lethal force. This is utterly erroneous, even in Florida

Again, history is irrelevant since Zimmerman wouldn't know that, and everyone who does have a "history" has a first time, right? As for a knife/gun being necessary to claim self defense that is not necessary under Florida law. All the is required is:

Florida law defines deadly force as force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapon ... fense.html

Note, your argument so far has been premised on the fact that Martin was unlikely to have killed him but that's NOT the only condition for lawful self defense. There is also "great bodily harm".

Volokh has a great overview here:

http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-s ... ense-laws/

According to Volokh:

Media coverage of Florida’s self-defense laws in recent weeks has often been very inaccurate. While some persons, particularly from the gun prohibition lobbies, have claimed that the Martin/Zimmerman case shows the danger of Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, that law is legally irrelevant to case. So let’s take a look at what the Florida laws actually say.

Fla. Stat. § 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

So the general rule is that deadly force may be used only to “imminent death or great bodily harm,” or “the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” A person may only use deadly force if he “reasonably believes” that the aforesaid factual conditions exist. These standards are the norm throughout the United States.

Eventually, a grand jury will issue a report based on its investigation. In the meantime, there are two competing narratives. In one narrative, Zimmerman followed Martin, attacked him, and then murdered him. Let’s call this the “M narrative.” In Zimmerman’s account, he followed Martin, caught up with him, and then left; while he was leaving, Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and began slamming his head into the pavement. Let’s call this the “Z narrative.”

I am not making any judgment about which narrative is more plausible. The grand jury will do that. For now, it should be noted that neither the M narrative or the Z narrative has anything to do with a duty to retreat. The retreat issue would only be relevant if Martin were the aggressor, and Z had the opportunity to escape from Martin in complete safety. Then, and only then, would different state standards about retreat be relevant. Simply put, everyone who has claimed that Florida’s retreat rule affect the legal disposition of the controversy is either misinformed or mendacious.

The core Florida law on deadly force in self-defense leads to clear results. If M is true, then Zimmerman’s firing of the gun was a criminal homicide. If Z is true, the act was lawful self-defense. The results would be the same in every other state.

In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction.

Based upon this analysis, if attacked, Zimmerman does have a valid self defense claim. Fear of being killed is not the only requirement.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Leave it to congress to put on a display of stunning irresponsibility, easily outdoing anything uttered in this thread:

In some of the strongest words uttered in the two-hour forum, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said Martin was “executed” and that his crime was “walk[ing] while black in a gated community.”

“It’s unfortunate that I have to tell [my son] now to be careful with that hoodie,” Johnson said.

Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, who represents another Florida district, said Martin was the victim of a "botched police investigation" and racial profiling, suggesting that the teenager was unfairly "hunted" by Zimmerman simply because he was black.

Thank goodness these Democratic lawmakers are attempting to mollify the situation, rather than making feckless assertions and fanning the flames of racial discord for their own political gain.

[hepcat]

I think there's more than enough idiocy going on from every side to go around.

[Exodor]

Does the Stand Your Ground law apply to Trayvon?

if he felt threatened by someone following him in an SUV and then exiting the vehicle was he allowed under the SYG law to defend himself? Or is the law written in such a way to apply to only those who use a firearm to defend themselves?

[Anonymous Bosch]

I think there's more than enough idiocy going on from every side to go around.

Perhaps, but that's certainly no justification for it, especially when uttered by congressional lawmakers.

[Kasey Chang]

Does the Stand Your Ground law apply to Trayvon?
if he felt threatened by someone following him in an SUV and then exiting the vehicle was he allowed under the SYG law to defend himself? Or is the law written in such a way to apply to only those who use a firearm to defend themselves?

It goes both ways.

EDIT: However, one interesting part about Florida law is that a vehicle is supposedly considered part of castle doctrine (i.e. defensible space). The fact that Zimmerman exited it to confront Trayvon is going to damn him, along with the refusal to back down despite advice form 911.

The very fact that Zimmerman called 911 and 911 told him do NOT pursue would indicate SOME sort of intent that goes beyond "self-defense". He's so noticeable following Trayvon that supposedly Trayvon, talking to girlfriend over the phone, noticed, and supposedly the girlfriend told him to run and he refused. I personally think they're post-facto adding to the dialog, but who's going to contradict them now? There's no recording to prove or disprove them either way, but they are NOT reliable witnesses and their dialog, whether intentional or not, is extremely emotionally polarizing and adds nothing to the investigation (trustworthiness very low, IMHO).

here's what I think happened:

* Zimmerman sees this guy walking with hoodies. It's dark, and there's no way he can tell this 6.3 guy wearing loose clothing is just a thin kid. He follows him around and calls 911. 911 tells him to lay off and they'll send an officer out to check
* Trayvon noticed this guy following him about 1 block back, but he's been taught to behave normally (unless the guy's gonna do a drive-by on him), so he kept walking at a deliberate pace
* At some point, Zimmerman, for whatever his reason(s), decided to hold Trayvon up for police to arrive, with gun drawn, doing a citizen's arrest thing
* Trayvon, upon seeing the gun, didn't hear the explanation, just attacked and try to take the gun away

So who did the screaming? I don't know. I suspect Zimmerman was the one screaming, not Trayvon. Zimmerman was expecting a compliant guy since he had the gun. Trayvon thought he's gonna get robbed so he's desperate fighting. The end result is one guy dead and the other PTSD for life.

[Kasey Chang]

I think there's more than enough idiocy going on from every side to go around.

Perhaps, but that's certainly no justification for it, especially when uttered by congressional lawmakers.

They only say that their constituents WANT to hear. So they are a reflection of us, not our betters.

[GreenGoo]

Does the Stand Your Ground law apply to Trayvon?

if he felt threatened by someone following him in an SUV and then exiting the vehicle was he allowed under the SYG law to defend himself? Or is the law written in such a way to apply to only those who use a firearm to defend themselves?

It's possible, if he had been the one that lived and Zimmermann had died. We still only have Zimmermann's word about how the altercation started. The witnesses just corroborate the fact that he was getting his ass kicked. It could just as easily be Trayvon telling us how Zimmermann pulled a gun on him and how his fight or flight kicked in and next thing you know Trayvon is on top of him trying to subdue him.

But Zimmermann survived and Trayvon did not and so here we are.

[GreenGoo]

I think there's more than enough idiocy going on from every side to go around.

Perhaps, but that's certainly no justification for it, especially when uttered by congressional lawmakers.

Agreed. Irresponsible is what it is.

[msduncan]

Does the Stand Your Ground law apply to Trayvon?

if he felt threatened by someone following him in an SUV and then exiting the vehicle was he allowed under the SYG law to defend himself? Or is the law written in such a way to apply to only those who use a firearm to defend themselves?

It certainly possible depending on the facts of the case.

Edit: Assuming you meant if Zimmerman had died instead of Trayvon. As it stands now, if Zimmerman is indeed guilty in this incident, the standard laws apply.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I think there's more than enough idiocy going on from every side to go around.

Perhaps, but that's certainly no justification for it, especially when uttered by congressional lawmakers.

They only say that their constituents WANT to hear. So they are a reflection of us, not our betters.

They have no constituents that would take issue with their cretinism? That seems unlikely, even in Floriduh.

[pr0ner]

here's what I think happened:

* Zimmerman sees this guy walking with hoodies. It's dark, and there's no way he can tell this 6.3 guy wearing loose clothing is just a thin kid. He follows him around and calls 911. 911 tells him to lay off and they'll send an officer out to check
* Trayvon noticed this guy following him about 1 block back, but he's been taught to behave normally (unless the guy's gonna do a drive-by on him), so he kept walking at a deliberate pace
* At some point, Zimmerman, for whatever his reason(s), decided to hold Trayvon up for police to arrive, with gun drawn, doing a citizen's arrest thing
* Trayvon, upon seeing the gun, didn't hear the explanation, just attacked and try to take the gun away

So who did the screaming? I don't know. I suspect Zimmerman was the one screaming, not Trayvon. Zimmerman was expecting a compliant guy since he had the gun. Trayvon thought he's gonna get robbed so he's desperate fighting. The end result is one guy dead and the other PTSD for life.

And here we have entered...the SPIN ZONE.

[Kasey Chang]

And here we have entered...the SPIN ZONE.

Fits all the facts... and makes more sense than "Zimmerman guns down poor kid in cold blood" which all the "civil rights leaders" seem to want to believe...

[RunningMn9]

My understanding from the leaked police report is that there is a 60-second gap in their timeline, which includes the initiation of the physical conflict.

A lone eyewitness has asserted that Zimmerman was being beaten, but that witness didn't see the confrontation begin.

While I doubt we will ever hear further details, I'd really like to understand why the lead homicide investigator didn't find Zimmerman's story believable.

In any case, it's incredibly irritating that these sorts of things always become about something else. Instead of the case itself, we are talking about which Congressperson said what, or where Al Sharpton is flying in to be a horse's ass.

Those things are certainly worthy of ridicule, but they aren't worthy of ignoring the case itself. Al Sharpton being an ass doesn't change who is responsible for this death. Spike Lee sending out irresponsible tweets doesn't change who is responsible for this death.

For some, they are more than happy to make this about Al Sharpton or Spike Lee. And they should be as ashamed of themselves as Al Sharpton and Spike Lee.

As to the case, my concern lies in those missing 60 seconds, and the notion that Zimmerman was perfectly safe while remaining in his SUV. He was in no danger, and he chose to change that situation despite receiving solid advice from the 911 operator.

When you only have two witnesses to the critical moment, and one has shot the other, it's hard to make a sound judgement from afar.

[Kasey Chang]

My understanding from the leaked police report is that there is a 60-second gap in their timeline, which includes the initiation of the physical conflict.
A lone eyewitness has asserted that Zimmerman was being beaten, but that witness didn't see the confrontation begin.

The problem here is what EXACTLY did he saw? Or did he IMAGINED the rest? Human mind is very adept in fitting what we saw into one's own belief system. He BELIEVES what he saw, but what he related is going to be what he BELIEVED, not necessarily what he saw.

EDIT: Here's the note about the gap

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager

And here are more questions:

http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-balt ... it-answers

While I doubt we will ever hear further details, I'd really like to understand why the lead homicide investigator didn't find Zimmerman's story believable.

Probably the same reasons we don't find the story believable: getting out of the car, and ignoring 911 advice to stay back.

[Crux]

It is actually pretty difficult to (quickly) beat someone to death barehanded. You can kill people barehanded, but it's pretty obvious that's what you're trying to do; snapping the neck, using lethal chokeholds, that kind of thing.

First of all, Martin didn't need to beat Zimmerman to death. He only had to beat him to the point where he could take Zimmerman's gun and shoot him with it. That's a small handful of good punches, a couple of kicks or a couple of times getting your head slammed into concrete. Easy enough to put someone in that kind of state with your bare hands within seconds.

Secondly, beating someone to death isn't some long, drawn-out process. Sure it can take a long time. But it can also be brutally quick. It doesn't require choke-holds, or to snap someone's neck. Blunt force trauma to the head will do it easily enough, and depending on how lucky you are even unskilled people can accomplish that pretty quickly if they focus and try hard.

A quick google search turns up multiple instances of people being beaten to death in the US in broad daylight with witnesses and either nobody intervenes, or nobody intervenes quickly enough to stop it. I don't know what happened that night, but if Martin did attack Zimmerman, and did manage to hit him and then strike his head on the pavement, then Zimmerman had no reasonable expectation that anyone would help him, and a very reasonable fear that he could be killed, even if there wasn't a gun involved in the altercation.

Understand I'm not taking sides - I don't know what happened, and frankly the way the 'news' on this keeps changing I'm with-holding any judgment for another month or two When I first read the story was right after it happened, and from the little details that were available then I was horrified and placed all of the blame on Zimmerman. I still place an onus on him for following Martin after being told not to by dispatch. By bringing the gun to the encounter he MADE it a deadly force encounter. However I also don't know how the encounter went down and so have to reserve judgment.

And, to be blunt, Zimmerman was not beaten, according to the physical evidence. He may have been struck, maybe even more than once, but he wasn't battered and bruised with broken ribs and bruised lungs.

You realize by the time he receives the level of injuries you're talking about he'd have been largely defenseless and Martin could have killed him at will?

The point is that there's absolutely no reason --including the physical evidence -- to believe that Trayvon really could have killed Zimmerman. He wasn't a street fighter, as far as we know. He wasn't at all muscular; as has been discussed in the thread, 140 pounds at 6'3" is skeletally thin and muscles weigh more than fat. He was completely unarmed, unless you're counting skittles as deadly weapons. If he'd been 250 pounds and had actual history (even non-criminal history as in school records) of aggressive behavior and violence, or had he had a knife or gun of his own, sure. I wouldn't even be involved in this discussion.

I'm 6'2, and typically sitting in at 157 lbs. I can easily squat my own bodyweight for 20 reps, I can bench my own bodyweight, and I'm a trained martial artist. With a shirt and sweater on, I look like I'm a big-ass guy because I have wide, big shoulders. In fact people typically overguess my weight by 15-30 lbs depending on what I'm wearing because of that.

Point being you are arguing that Zimmerman should have looked at Martin and somehow known he wasn't a threat? Based on what? ESP? ESPN?

[Grifman]

The problem here is what EXACTLY did he saw? Or did he IMAGINED the rest? Human mind is very adept in fitting what we saw into one's own belief system. He BELIEVES what he saw, but what he related is going to be what he BELIEVED, not necessarily what he saw

Sure but he's the only eyewitness to the actual struggle - and you are ignoring that his testimony is corroborated by Zimmerman's injuries. If the witness said he saw Zimmerman underneath Martin being pounded but Zimmerman had no evidence of any injuries, yeah, maybe you'd be right. But Zimmerman does have such injuries and there were grass stains and wet grass on his back, all consistent with both Zimmerman's and the witness's stories.

[GreenGoo]

For the record, if I'm knocked to the ground and some has me enough in their control that I can't stop them from banging my head against the ground over and over I'm pulling my gun and shooting them if I can. Assuming I carried a gun. When you're on the ground, mounted, and unable to stop the assault from striking you in the head, it's time for some bullets.

The UFC stops fights in that situation often enough, and with good reason.

[Kasey Chang]

What I find interesting is that neither "Trayvon still had a bag of skittles on his way home from the store" nor "he was in the gated community legitimately." are particularly relevant to whether or not it was legitimate self defense or not, but those narratives continued to be pushed.

They are pushing the "innocent kid gunned down by vigilante" angle, despite the fact that Zimmerman could not have known that.

And when someone leaked the info that Martin was suspended from school for possible possession and may have attacked first, they claim it's an effort to smear the kid's reputation. (And Zimmerman could not have known that either).

Clearly, turnabout is NOT fair play, when it comes to race.

[Kasey Chang]

The problem here is what EXACTLY did he saw? Or did he IMAGINED the rest? Human mind is very adept in fitting what we saw into one's own belief system. He BELIEVES what he saw, but what he related is going to be what he BELIEVED, not necessarily what he saw

Sure but he's the only eyewitness to the actual struggle - and you are ignoring that his testimony is corroborated by Zimmerman's injuries. If the witness said he saw Zimmerman underneath Martin being pounded but Zimmerman had no evidence of any injuries, yeah, maybe you'd be right. But Zimmerman does have such injuries and there were grass stains and wet grass on his back, all consistent with both Zimmerman's and the witness's stories.

I am not saying not to believe the guy. I'm merely asking that you take into account there may be a difference between he he saw, vs. what he THOUGHT he saw. A trained observer separates the two. Untrained witnesses, which is basically EVERYBODY with few exceptions, treat both as the same thing. Cops and interrogators are trained to separate the two by asking probing questions.

[GreenGoo]

What I find interesting is that neither "Trayvon still had a bag of skittles on his way home from the store" nor "he was in the gated community legitimately." are particularly relevant to whether or not it was legitimate self defense or not, but those narratives continued to be pushed.

They give context to the encounter. They have no bearing in a court of law, but they are crucial to understand what led up to the encounter in the first place. The 911 operator telling Zimmermann not to follow Trayvon is not particularly relevant to a self defense defense either, but it can go to show how things came down to a confrontation. After all, no one is trying to prove an altercation happened. That's seems pretty clear. What happened during the altercation is the issue, and only part of it since there is an eye witness.

So pretty much ANYTHING that happened before the encounter occured is irrelevant for claiming self defense. That doesn't mean it's not useful to frame the encounter, especially since the encounter itself is such an unknown, barring testimony of the shooter. And on a side note, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. How much weight you give it depends on the context in which it is found.

[Grifman]

I am not saying not to believe the guy. I'm merely asking that you take into account there may be a difference between he he saw, vs. what he THOUGHT he saw. A trained observer separates the two. Untrained witnesses, which is basically EVERYBODY with few exceptions, treat both as the same thing. Cops and interrogators are trained to separate the two by asking probing questions.

Which is why I pointed out his testimony is corroborated by Zimmerman's testimony and evidence on Zimmerman's body. For you to continue to discount his testimony after that is rather questionable unless you have further evidence.

[Kasey Chang]

Which is why I pointed out his testimony is corroborated by Zimmerman's testimony and evidence on Zimmerman's body. For you to continue to discount his testimony after that is rather questionable unless you have further evidence.

I think I should apply the same rhetoric on all the OTHER witnesses, who ASSUMED that the one screaming must have been Martin.

[GreenGoo]

I think I should apply the same rhetoric on all the OTHER witnesses, who ASSUMED that the one screaming must have been Martin.

Wait, what?

Others said they heard some yelling for help. They didn't even know who was yelling for help at the time. How they could know it was Martin at that time is questionable. In any case, none have come forward and testified that it was Martin that they are sure they heard. One has come forward and testified that he saw, without doubt, Martin on top of Zimmermann, banging his head against the ground (or at least fighting).

Grif is right. Barring more evidence you must accept the eyewitness's account. Or you can simply say he's lying based on a gut feeling, but that doesn't seem like a good way to approach serious situations like this.

I'm left with squinty eyes and suspicions, but there's not much I can do about it if nothing else comes to light except accept Zimmermann's story.

[msduncan]

What I find interesting is that neither "Trayvon still had a bag of skittles on his way home from the store" nor "he was in the gated community legitimately." are particularly relevant to whether or not it was legitimate self defense or not, but those narratives continued to be pushed.

They are pushing the "innocent kid gunned down by vigilante" angle, despite the fact that Zimmerman could not have known that.

And when someone leaked the info that Martin was suspended from school for possible possession and may have attacked first, they claim it's an effort to smear the kid's reputation. (And Zimmerman could not have known that either).

Clearly, turnabout is NOT fair play, when it comes to race.

I believe that info was leaked to counter the image of the 14 year old we've been seeing. This image, while meaningless to the case, is HUGE in the court of public opinion. If the Trayvon supporters are wrong in their belief that he was murdered... it's irresponsible and dangerous.

[Grifman]

Which is why I pointed out his testimony is corroborated by Zimmerman's testimony and evidence on Zimmerman's body. For you to continue to discount his testimony after that is rather questionable unless you have further evidence.

I think I should apply the same rhetoric on all the OTHER witnesses, who ASSUMED that the one screaming must have been Martin.

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say here. The other witnesses are ASSUMING that it was Martin yelling as they never actually say who was yelling. The only actual eyewitness to the struggle says that Zimmerman was yelling (along with a lot of other things). So what are you trying to say because it's not clear to me what your point is, sorry about that.

[Bakhtosh]

It's the job of the Neighborhood Watch to spot suspicious activity, call it in to the police, and report to the officers when the police arrive. You're not doing your job if you turn your back on a suspicious person just because some 911 dispatcher tells you to not follow him. A dispatcher can't order someone to stop following someone else.

[Enough]

A good illustration of what is going on in the media regarding this case:



Again I maintain that none of the pictures matter. Someone can have a suit and tie and murder, and someone can look like a gang banger and hold doors open for little old ladies.

However, the overall theme of the picture is accurate. We are blatantly being painted a picture by the media and it isn't an accurate one.

I'm disappointed that you have not edited this post yet considering "accuracy" was the hallmark of your post and we now know that this photo of Trayvon is NOT of him. It turns out it was lifted from a neo-nazi website. Neato.

[rhinohelix]

A good illustration of what is going on in the media regarding this case:



Again I maintain that none of the pictures matter. Someone can have a suit and tie and murder, and someone can look like a gang banger and hold doors open for little old ladies.

However, the overall theme of the picture is accurate. We are blatantly being painted a picture by the media and it isn't an accurate one.

I'm disappointed that you have not edited this post yet considering "accuracy" was the hallmark of your post and we now know that this photo of Trayvon is NOT of him. It turns out it was lifted from a neo-nazi website. Neato.

Much more recent picture of Trayvon, hotlinked from the Wagist story about Trayvon's other activities, caveat emptor as I don't know anything about the site: The Wagist. It appears slanted towards Zimmermann's side of the case.

[Paingod]

I'm disappointed that you have not edited this post yet considering "accuracy" was the hallmark of your post and we now know that this photo of Trayvon is NOT of him. It turns out it was lifted from a neo-nazi website. Neato.

Is this more to your liking?

[hepcat]

If anything, the photos of Trayvon as a teenager are indicative of the same type of prejudicial imagery. Why is a removable gold grille on his teeth a sign of evil intent? The photo is a kid emulating his peers and his pop culture icons...neither of which is inherently bad in any way, shape or form. Not all rappers preach messages of violence and hatred.

And at least one journalist has also pointed out that he had at least one tattoo in one of the photos. Yeah, that's pretty bad...

...until you find out it's a tattoo of his mom's first name.

Was the kid a saint? Nope, he was a teenager. By definition they ain't saints, according to every parent I've ever known.

Was the press wrong in using a mug shot for Zimmerman? I would say yes.

But to try and damn that by digging up photos that in no way show this kid to be anything BUT a kid is equally ridiculous and reprehensible.

[Enough]

I'm disappointed that you have not edited this post yet considering "accuracy" was the hallmark of your post and we now know that this photo of Trayvon is NOT of him. It turns out it was lifted from a neo-nazi website. Neato.

Is this more to your liking?

Even that image is currently being questioned, but if it's really him of course I like it better than the fake one, duh. What it doesn't make better is that MSD rushed to post an image sourced from flippin' StormFront and still has yet to edit his post admitting he too rushed to judgement. He got rolled by the very forces he was bitching about, don't you see that? No doubt we can still wag our fingers at the media for turning this into a Bonfire of the Vanities-- but that doesn't let any of us off the hook for doing the exact same thing. Posting link bait photos from a racist website really doesn't go a long ways in helping make MSD successful in his attempt to balance the media hysteria.

Of course in the context of the larger issues, none of this matters. Trying to be popular/cool and emulating your cohort doesn't mean you deserve to die. There's clearly more information needed for us to know what really happened, but it's quite clear in this thread that there are plenty of folks who have already made up their mind (on both sides) based on incomplete and inaccurate information. This story has become another liberal vs conservative shout-zone and it's really annoying. This shit ain't team sports people. And freaking Spike Lee is just as bad as Business Insider and StormFront, I'm equal opportunity here.

[stimpy]

20 pages and not 1 of you has cracked this case yet.


I am so disappointed in you guys....

[hepcat]

20 pages and not 1 of you has cracked this case yet.


I am so disappointed in you guys....

In my defense, Watson is off this week. This leaves me with just opium.

[Rip]

If anything, the photos of Trayvon as a teenager are indicative of the same type of prejudicial imagery. Why is a removable gold grille on his teeth a sign of evil intent? The photo is a kid emulating his peers and his pop culture icons...neither of which is inherently bad in any way, shape or form. Not all rappers preach messages of violence and hatred.

And at least one journalist has also pointed out that he had at least one tattoo in one of the photos. Yeah, that's pretty bad...

...until you find out it's a tattoo of his mom's first name.

Was the kid a saint? Nope, he was a teenager. By definition they ain't saints, according to every parent I've ever known.

Was the press wrong in using a mug shot for Zimmerman? I would say yes.

But to try and damn that by digging up photos that in no way show this kid to be anything BUT a kid is equally ridiculous and reprehensible.

Photos are what photos are. It isn't like people picked through a stack of recent Trayvon photos to find the most unappealing one they could. This is a picture HE chose to make public by using it for his twitter account and others well before this incident. Find another RECENT one not from years ago that we can use for him.

[Grifman]

20 pages and not 1 of you has cracked this case yet.


I am so disappointed in you guys....

Just give me one of these, Cochise and I'll have this case cracked in no time.

[hepcat]

Photos are what photos are. It isn't like people picked through a stack of recent Trayvon photos to find the most unappealing one they could. This is a picture HE chose to make public by using it for his twitter account and others well before this incident. Find another RECENT one not from years ago that we can use for him.

You need to reread what I wrote. My point was that those photos weren't indicative of a bad person. They're just being interpreted as such by people who's viewpoint you seem to share if you believe they are.

What exactly is Trayvon doing that's so menacing in those photos?

[Jag]

We have top men working on it. Top men!

Edit: If they used any of the pictures taken of me during my college years, I would have looked like a ... well, not good let's just say and I was a pretty good kid.

[gameoverman]

In a way, I think we are limited to talking about issues other than the particulars of this case, since we don't have all the particulars. We may never have all the particulars.

So this case has given as good a chance as any to talk about stand your ground laws, vigilantism, neighborhood watch etiquette, racial profiling, gun carry ramifications, and yes, how the media portrays all this kind of thing.

So unless we aren't supposed to say anything about it at all, what else are people going to post?