patrick.net

clambo says

Sounds like a guy you should not attack.

SOunds like an asshole who would provoke "an attack."

marcus says

Just a theory that sounds very plausible to me.

Based on the evidence at hand this sounds very plausible.

Dan8267 says

This, coupled by the fact that Martin was shot in the back

Is this true? If so its extremely damning, but what I read (and I just checked a couple of articles right now) is that he was shot in the chest. That doesn't make it OK, of course...

clambo says

Sounds like a guy you should not attack.

Incorrect.

If someone follows you then tries to detain you even children are taught to attempt escape. Yes, even if this includes attacking the person at first in order to get their hands off you.

Unfortunately this can result in being shot in the back. However, if someone is willing to shoot you in the back you should not let them hold you or take you to another location.

the police did not talk to Zimmerman over the phone ... for the zillionith time.

Leo, I disagree with the entire system of "license" to exersize your rights. Until we need a license to vote, we should not need a license to carry a weapon as long as we are a legal citizen that has not been convicted of a felony that removes the right to carry a weapon. Giving the power of "pass/fail" to some gov agency (local or national), is not how I think it should be done. But, in answer to your question, I would issue a permit to everyone who is legally allowed to carry ... other wise I may be called a racist/sexist/homophobe/zionist/islamist or some other name that the rejected person claims as their protected group.

@marcus,
Jesse Sharpten, Al Jackson, Lord Barry's Czars, are a great example of what is wrong in America's negro political arm. Herman Cain, Condi Rice, and Judge Thomas are examples of what is right in America's negro political arm. I admire these three completely becasue of who they are and not their negro bloodline. You are a racist if you only see race every chance you get. Sharpeten and Jackson and SpikeLee and Lord Barry's Czars are all racists. Are you a racist marcus? I don't know that you are. I think you are a compassionate person who sees the youth in teenagers, and would rather not see the harsh monster that can be found in many of today's teenagers. I'm not saying you are PollyAnna about it, just that you want to see the good ... and that may be why you miss some facts along the way.

Bap, please be so kind as to answer.

marcus says

Based on what we know (not what we wish were true), what's more likely ?

1) That Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter or worse.

2) That Martin was a prowler. (If that's to difficult to define - replace with "Martin had motives for being in the neighborhood that were not innocent").

Please, which of those two are more likely in your opinion?

marcus says

clambo says

Sounds like a guy you should not attack.

SOunds like an asshole who would provoke "an attack."

marcus, was the prowler provoking an attack by his actions?

both persons left their domicile with a particular set of actions in their minds for the next few minutes. If you would find a way to explain the prowler walking back and forth in front of a secluded residence, in the dark, late at night, with his identity hid by a hoody, acting just like the criminal element in the area, out of his supposed pathway to the store, I'd listen. Because the when,where,why, and how for Zimmermans actions are all set out and factual. Do the exact same for the prowler. So far, the best excuse has been, "he has the right to walk around in the dark late at night." If that is good enough for you, then you do not understand right and wrong. In my opinion.

Bap33 says

Leo, I disagree with the entire system of "license" to exersize your rights. Until we need a license to vote, we should not need a license to carry a weapon as long as we are a legal citizen that has not been convicted of a felony that removes the right to carry a weapon.

Behavior/activities that are dangerous are routinely licensed and I see this as a good thing -- driving, etc. We can agree to disagree on this.

I appreciate the candid response.

So, just to be extra sure on where you stand. What you are saying is that you are totally supportive of someone, for whom your wife/daughter has filed a restraining order against, legally being able to carry a concealed firearm? Or someone who has a history of mental instability? Or people with known violent gang affiliations? As long as there is not felony on their record you they should legally be able to conceal carry with no license requirement?

Wow, I thought that I was pretty permissive in who should be eligible for a CCW, and what they should be allowed to carry. That goes way beyond what I would feel comfortable with in my neighborhood.

@marcus,
#1) I am not a lawyer or judge and not too sure of what all "manslaughter" can be ... and really not sure about "guilty" of it ... but, Zimmerman did kill the prowler with a shot from his weapon. I assume it was on purpose, since the claim of accidental discharge has not been made to my knowledge. So, if the law says killing a person on purpose is manslaughter, no matter what the situation is, then he would have to be guilty of that. But, if there is no law against shooting an attacker, or if that removes the manslaughter part, then Zimmerman didn't brake any law.
But, the street justice that the racebaitors are wanting should bother more than anything else. Innocent lives are at stake.

2) I think that sounds about right.

I'm accumulating sources. Here's one.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20120403facts_vs_rumors_in_the_trayvon_martin_saga/srvc=home&position=recent

I will ad them to this same post (by edit if I find others like this).

An editorial, but good.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ama-yawson/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_b_1399944.html

Bap33 says

But, the street justice that the racebaitors are wanting

The people who you cal racebaiters are people who strongly feel Zimmerman must be charged and tried.

Bap33 says

Your picking a side to enjoy an arguement.

How so? Everything I've said is backed up by evidence: video or audio.

The claim that Martin was prowling is a conjecture with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it. The claim that Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman is unsupported, and even if it did happen, that would be Martin exercising his right to self-defense against a man who stalked him, got out of the car, and became menacing. All of which is apparent from the 911 call and Zimmerman's obviously displayed rage.

By any standards Zimmerman instigated the whole situation and Martin could not escape. Zimmerman had a car; Martin was on foot. WTF, was Martin suppose to do? Shoot himself to save Zimmerman the trouble? Hell, Martin was calling for help at the time of the attack according to all the forensics experts who listened to the 911 recording.

Look, I know why you and others want Zimmerman to get away with this killing. O.J. Simpson. Yep, The Juice. O.J. was guilty of murdering his white wife. We all know that. Hell, even all African Americans know that, even though they won't admit it. But Martin isn't O.J. and Zimmerman isn't O.J.'s wife. Letting Zimmerman go won't undo the injustice of the O.J. Simpson trial. Nor did that trial make it any more likely that a black man will be acquitted of murder unless he's a movie star, an NFL player, and has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on lawyers. So let it go. This ain't about O.J. It's about a 17-year-old kid who was shot to death unjustly.

Bap33 says

I'm just pointing out facts without adding in the racebaitor games from the left.

Any race baiting by "the left" is completely irrelevant to this case. And do state that race has nothing to do with this crime, is a blatant lie. What you could race baiting is at least mostly people coming to grips that this was a racially motivated crime and it resulted in the death of a minor.

Bap33 says

It is laughable that you touted the ABC vid as undeniable proof when it fit your template, and then discredit the vid when it proves your view false.

I touted the untampered security camera video as evidence, not undeniable proof, but good evidence that Zimmerman's story was not accurate. Tampered with video can be made to look like anything. How did they "enhance" the video? Did they press a magic "enhance" button or did they pay an artist to change the pixels based on what he thought should be there? Enhanced is code for Photochopped. Big difference.

I could enhance the video to show Zimmerman wearing a KKK robe if I wanted to. If you want to bring "enhanced" video in the court, I want to know who's doing the enhancement, what exactly he is doing, and I want to see him do it right in front of the court. I've completely against the use of "junk science" in the courtroom. It has lead to the execution of at least one innocent person.

You notice that I did not deny that Martin had gold teeth, wore a hoodie, or was suspended. These things are true. However, they don't justify a murder, not by a long shot.

Bap33 says

Shooting a person in the trunk with a small caliber weapon will not splatter the shooter, and you know this also.

I most certainly don't know that. TYT's claim that shooting a person at close range when the target is on top of you should cause blood to be on your shirt seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'll be willing to concede this point if several forensics experts confirm that you are correct on this. I haven't performed any experiments to confirm or disprove this, and I don't plan on doing so.

Bap33 says

At close range, a trunk shot is not a 100% kill shot - again, you knew that.

If you shoot and kill someone, it's murder whether or not there was a 100% chance of the person dying. The only question is whether the murder is: first degree, second degree, manslaughter, or self-defense.

Bap33 says

Please answer this: Why didn't Trevon have a weapon on him?

Most people outside of Texas don't carry weapons. And just because Martin wasn't carrying a weapon, doesn't mean he couldn't be suddenly placed in a situation where he feared for his life. I don't see your point.

Bap33 says

Zimmerman was acting as a defender ... he had a reason to be out walking the neighborhood in the dark, late at night, it was his DUTY and his RIGHT.

And Zimmerman should have followed the 911 operator's instructions to stay back. Then no one would be dead. Zimmerman was more than free to video record Martin while maintaining a distance, as creepy as that is.

Zimmerman was obviously angry and upset. And that is no condition for anyone "upholding the law" to be in. If you want to be a law enforcer, you have to be calm, cool, and collected.

bdrasin says

Is this true? If so its extremely damning, but what I read (and I just checked a couple of articles right now) is that he was shot in the chest.

Dan8267 says

leoj707 says

Oh, yeah and I was unaware that Trayvon was shot in the back. I don't think that any self defense law allows you to shoot someone in the back.

Damn, I didn't know that either. That does make it look pretty much like it has to be murder not manslaughter. And it's not defense when you shoot someone in the back.

Maybe not. I read the comment by leoj707, but did not confirm it since leoj707 is very good on being factually correct. However, leoj707 was responding to someone else and the original text is no longer available, so I can't trace it to the source.

There are some Internet sites claiming that Martin was shot in the back, however, none of them that I can find are substantiated.

http://www.amazonsellercommunity.coms/message.jspa?messageID=2840778
http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/eye-witness-appears-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/
http://www.amazonsellercommunity.coms/message.jspa?messageID=2840778

It appear that this rumor came from a misquoting of an erroneous statement from Rev. Jesse Jackson. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20120403facts_vs_rumors_in_the_trayvon_martin_saga

Statement: Trayvon Martin was shot in the back of the head.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson got that wrong at a rally in Eatonville on March 25. Trayvon was shot once in the chest at close range.

Conclusion: The statement that Martin was shot in the back is false. Martin was shot in the front. This weakens the case for first-degree murder and strengthens both the case for manslaughter and self-defense. It does not, however, prove either.

leoj707 says

If someone follows you then tries to detain you even children are taught to attempt escape.

But, of course, running makes you look guilty. And if Martin had run, Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and everyone would be saying that Martin ran because he was guilty of something.

all this talk of racism is missing the most important part of the situation: zimmerman stalked, shot, and killed a person who was living in the community.

zimmerman had no legal or legitimate authority to enforce the law or even act as a neighborhood watch captain because there was no organized neighborhood watch.

martin was legally in the community. he's under no obligation to register with the local self proclaimed watch captain. he's under no obligation to submit to a stop and talk with the local self proclaimed watch captain.

martin was a recent arrival to the community. personally, if I was in the same situation, I would consider being followed by a guy in an SUV and then chased on foot as at least creepy, if not threatening...especially if that individual appears white and has a shaved head.

leoj707 says

Behavior/activities that are dangerous are routinely licensed and I see this as a good thing -- driving, etc. We can agree to disagree on this.

you mention things that are not rights, they are privilages that can be revoked. And a license to ensure minimum abilities and understanding for the others using public roadways seems logical.

Known gang affiliation that is not prossecuted is not the fault of the citizen. In my world we hang all inmates on death row tomorrow, and every gangster in prison gets hung the next day. Anyone found to be a gangster should be hung right away. But, a citizen just suspected of being a gangster, that is a legal citizen and legal to carry in every other way, has no reason to give up their right to be armed however they wish

Like I said, we let anyone over 18 vote, and anyone over 21 buy booze, so anyone of age should be able to carry anything they wish at any time, if they can legally do so. THere are laws against murder and intimidation. Weather or not a gun is involved should not matter. Like he said, there are some big perverts in prison that don't need guns as a weapon to inflict pain, torture, and death.

omgbacon says

zimmerman had no legal or legitimate authority to enforce the law or even act as a neighborhood watch captain because there was no organized neighborhood watch.

To add to your point, even if he was a member of a Neighborhood Watch, I believe all the state and national NW orgs have a policy that members should NOT carry weapons, only report.

I reiterate my theory:
Zimmerman was a frustrated wanna-be cop, who never could be because of his DV/Assault arrest record. This was the primary driver.

There are also reports he was canned from a Security Guard job for overzealous behavior. This statement from a co-worker is very revealing about his mentality:

George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive, ex-co-worker says

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

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

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

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

The former co-worker, who is no longer in touch with Zimmerman, said he was shocked to hear what happened Feb. 26 in a gated community in Sanford, Fla.

“He definitely loved being in charge. He loved the power. Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never,” he said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223#ixzz1r0NrirrU

Dan8267 says

The claim that Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman is unsupported, and even if it did happen, that would be Martin exercising his right to self-defense against a man who stalked him, got out of the car, and became menacing

you should write fiction for a living.

thunderlips11 says

This statement from a co-worker is very revealing about his mentality:

no, this statement from a person wanting to be part of the parade shows they want to be part of the parade.

Dan, please go here and then comment: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-police-report-reveals-crime-scene-details-175656087.html

I really liked the part that says, "directly conflicts against what the racebaitors were saying". I paraphrased a bit.

Some parts of FL are not a civil paradise like the Bay Area. You have to take into account that these laws prevent a lot of crime.

omgbacon says

zimmerman had no legal or legitimate authority to enforce the law or even act as a neighborhood watch captain because there was no organized neighborhood watch.

I don't think he'd have the right to do what he did even if there was an organized neighborhood watch.

omgbacon says

if I was in the same situation, I would consider being followed by a guy in an SUV and then chased on foot as at least creepy, if not threatening...especially if that individual appears white and has a shaved head.

OMG! Shaved heads are the white equivalent of hoodies! Watch out Mr. Clean!

I've got to give props to bacon for flipping that issue.

thunderlips11 says

Zimmerman was a frustrated wanna-be cop, who never could be because of his DV/Assault arrest record. This was the primary driver.

There are also reports he was canned from a Security Guard job for overzealous behavior. This statement from a co-worker is very revealing about his mentality:

George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive, ex-co-worker says

I agree. This is what makes it ambivalent as to whether Zimmerman committed first-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. I'm about 50/50 on which one he should be charged with. It all comes down to how much premeditation Zimmerman had.

He certainly was in a pissed off, gun ho state. But how much intention did he have to hurt Martin. It's hard to say. There's certainly evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was out to get Martin after being frustrated that he didn't get all the other blacks. The question is whether or not there is enough evidence.

I suppose it doesn't matter too much since Florida's 10-20-Life law ensures that Zimmerman, if convicted of manslaughter using a gun, would get at least 25 years in prison.

Bap33 says

Like I said, we let anyone over 18 vote, and anyone over 21 buy booze, so anyone of age should be able to carry anything they wish at any time, if they can legally do so.

Anyone who can legally carry a gun can carry a gun. That's a truism.

Now it might be interesting if we had some rational criteria for determining who can and who cannot legally care a gun and what kinds of guns and ammo they could carry.

Bap33 says

THere are laws against murder and intimidation. Weather or not a gun is involved should not matter.

The voters of Florida disagree with you. Personally, I don't believe in minimum sentencing laws as they unjustly assume there are never extraneous circumstances. However, the social conservatives in Florida got "all tough on crime" and demanded stricter laws.

Politicians always obliged because being tough on crime is always a good political move. As a result, Florida has a law called 10-20-Life which states

So, in Florida, where the shooting took place, the use of a gun is very much important. Ironically, the passage of the 10-20-Life law was mainly motivated to target black criminals and billboards are posted all over black neighborhoods with the above image.

Now maybe like me, you don't agree with minimum sentencing laws in general or the 10-20-Life law in particular, but it was passed by social conservative voters, people just like you bap.

Dan, please go here and then comment: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-police-report-reveals-crime-scene-details-175656087.html

thank you.

I am all for 1 strike, but I'll take 3 strikes. The death penalty by hanging, in a public arena, with the body left hanging - completely nude - for three days while birds feast on the eyes and other soft tissue, and dogs eat the entrails that gather on the ground - is how I suggest we deal with gangs, child molestation, kidnapping, forced sodomy rape, murder while robbing, first degree murder, car-jacking (not just armed, but any), drug sales of any amount for any amount of money. Public death by hanging in a time frame of about 1 year from the time you do the crime until you swing. It's time to get productivity up to speed.

Bap33 says

Dan, please go here and then comment: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-police-report-reveals-crime-scene-details-175656087.html

The article isn't particularly useful, but the police report is. Now, police reports are not evidence. They are merely reports. The police report does collaborate part of Zimmerman's story. It implies that Zimmerman was on his back and that he did bleed, although it does not describe the bleeding as slight or heavy. So it doesn't match up with the story that Zimmerman got severely assaulted.

Also, we cannot be sure that the grass stains weren't caused by Zimmerman himself after he shot Martin. He could have easily panicked after the attack and rubbed his back against the grass to simulate a tussle.

In all, the police report, even if taken as completely accurate, doesn't give us much insight into what happened.

However, the police report does state that Zimmerman committed "Homicide - negligence, Manslaughter, Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act". It does not state what "unlawful act" was being prevented.

If we were to go by the police report, which we shouldn't since it's not valid evidence, we'd convict Zimmerman of voluntary manslaughter and sentence him to a minimum of 25 years in prison.

However, it would take testimony under oath in a court of law by the police officer to carry any weight. And that requires at least charging Zimmerman with something.

As for race-baiting, neither the article and the police report mention any such thing. Only the reader comments do, and they carry no weight in this case.

Racism was clearly the motive behind this crime, even if it was just the irrational fear of any young black man. Understanding that is important to prevent future crimes of this type and to establish motive. Beyond that, race is irrelevant. What matters is that Zimmerman unlawfully killed a minor and he used a gun to do that in violation of Florida's 10-20-Life law. The only question is whether it was first degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.

Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law does not apply to fights that you pick. See my Punchy McAsshole example.

FortWayne says

Some parts of FL are not a civil paradise like the Bay Area. You have to take into account that these laws prevent a lot of crime.

That certainly was the intent. I don't have statistics showing whether or not it worked, but here's the background on the 10-20-Life law.

Sun Sentinel: `10-20-life' Should Deter Gun Use from July 02, 1999:

The law was a top priority for Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature, and unlike some anti-gun legislation, this one takes aim at the correct targets: criminals. It has won support both from the National Rifle Association and Handgun Control Inc., usually bitter ideological and political enemies.

The law is simplicity itself, summed up in a new TV ad campaign starring actor Chuck Norris, star of TV's Walker: Texas Ranger: "Use a gun, and you're done." Bush recruited old-pal Norris as a celebrity spokesman for the campaign, and he was a good choice.

The law makes one fact abundantly clear: "It is the intent of the Legislature to establish zero tolerance of criminals who use, threaten to use, or avail themselves of firearms in order to commit crimes and thereby demonstrate their lack of value for human life."

Make no mistake, conservatives not liberals made this law.

Florida lawmakers made the right choice by appropriating $500,000 to help publicize the new law and its tough mandatory penalties on TV and radio stations, billboards and posters, both within and outside Florida. Ignorance of the law will be no excuse.

And to this day, you see such billboards and hear commercials of the 10-20-Life law every day in Florida.

Dan8267 says

How so? Everything I've said is backed up by evidence: video or audio.

Even this most recent statement of your is backed up by evidence?

"Racism was clearly the motive behind this crime, even if it was just the irrational fear of any young black man."

Can you please provide this evidence? Are you aware that NBC has been caught doctoring the 911 call trying to portray Zimmerman as a racist?

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/04/nbc-to-investigate-itself-over-editing-911-call-of-george-zimmerman.html

Bap33 says

I am all for 1 strike, but I'll take 3 strikes. The death penalty by hanging, in a public arena, with the body left hanging - completely nude - for three days while birds feast on the eyes and other soft tissue, and dogs eat the entrails that gather on the ground - is how I suggest we deal with gangs, child molestation, kidnapping, forced sodomy rape, murder while robbing, first degree murder, car-jacking (not just armed, but any), drug sales of any amount for any amount of money.

Wow, your just like Jesus! I'm sure Jesus would strip naked a human being, kill him, and let his flesh rot for selling a pot joint, especially since the list of drugs that are legal and the list that are illegal is determined mainly by the pharmaceutical lobby. Would that strip naked and rot law apply to alcohol sales during prohibition?

I thought you conservatives were all about personal responsibility and not letting the nanny state get out of control.

Not that I'm for the legalization of pot, but in the least you're punishment seems disproportional to the crime and it's debatable whether or not the state should be allowed to control the commerce of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. In any case, such regulations do seem to go against the free market that Republicans are always trumpeting.

Now, we could make a good case for outlawing hard drugs that cause people to become violent. The case against those drugs is that taking them imposes the risk of violence upon others and that violates their rights. But if anything, this standard would make alcohol illegal before marijuana. And this is coming from someone who enjoys a good glass of wine but has never smoked pot or tobacco in his life.

But more importantly, doesn't your bloodlust to get the baddies completely contradict Jesus's teachings of forgiveness and compassion? Now, I'm only calling for Zimmerman to be charged with either voluntary manslaughter or first-degree murder. I'm not calling for the death penalty or sexual humiliation or body mutilation. I want justice, not vengeance. And those two goals are mutually exclusive.

As someone who has studied Jesus's teachings for the first 18 years of my life, I don't get how you can reconcile relishing in another person's suffering -- even a bad person -- with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As Bill Mayer said,

You’re supposed to look at that figure of Christ on the cross and think, “how could a man suffer like that and forgive?” Not, “Romans are pussies, he still has his eyes.”

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

How so? Everything I've said is backed up by evidence: video or audio.

Even this most recent statement of your is backed up by evidence?

"Racism was clearly the motive behind this crime, even if it was just the irrational fear of any young black man

Zimmerman called 911 46 times, always to report "suspicious" blacks. In the 911 call he made on the day he shot Martin, Zimmerman stated that "they [blacks] always get away". Yeah, I say that an objective person would consider Zimmerman to be a racist.

Dan8267 says

Now, I'm only calling for Zimmerman to be charged with either voluntary manslaughter or first-degree murder.

Why not second degree murder? As the facts stand today that seems like a very possible outcome to me. At least more than first degree.

Dan8267 says

Zimmerman called 911 46 times,

Here is more evidence of crapy reporting by all of the networks.

Zimmerman called 911 46 times since 2004 which works out to about 5 times a year. It is certainly more than I have ever called 911. But I have never done security or neighborhood watches. What's normal for that line of work?

Needless to say, 911 calls is hardly "evidence" that Zimmerman is a racist. There is enough evidence (if it pans out) to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, why do you, Al Sharpton and the Media need to invent racist motives when you don't have the facts to support such a terrible charge?

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/trayvon-martin-is-everything-you-think-you-know-just-media-bs.html

Dan8267 says

However, the police report does state that Zimmerman committed "Homicide - negligence, Manslaughter, Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act". It does not state what "unlawful act" was being prevented.

Dan, the act(s) are mentioned in the 911 calls by Zimmerman (first) and the 911 calls by those who watched and heard the fight and shot (second). The police on site wouldn't add anything other than FIRST HAND info (you know this).

Dan8267 says

Zimmerman called 911 46 times, always to report "suspicious" blacks. In the 911 call he made on the day he shot Martin, Zimmerman stated that "they [blacks] always get away". Yeah, I say that an objective person would consider Zimmerman to be a racist.

Prove that the calls were only to report blacks
Prove that blacks are not the ones doing bad things in that area
You inserted [blacks] into the call ... NBC would hire you in an instant.
Prove that of the 46 calls made (in whatever time frame you are using) there was only 46 instances that required a 911 call in the area, or maybe, there were 298 911 calls in that area, with only a few being made by Zimmerman?
Prove the race issue.
Who's the racist when negros murder negros? Or when "X" murders "X"?

Dan, on your Jesus points:

Someone is supposed to protect the weak and innocent from those who chose to do harm. THat is why we have punishment. Jails and prison should be the only way to keep criminals safe from the public that demands justice ... not the other way arund, like it is now, where jails and prisons are used to protect the public from evil people.

The forgiveness you are talking about is on a personal level. So, when some dude breaks into your home and rapes and dismembers your family, you are supposed to not hate him, but forgive him of his sins -- on the personal level -- but, for the good of society, the crimes committed must be accounted for and justice served. Justice served.

The figure that some look at on a cross is their mistake, not mine. Those graven images are not correct, in my understanding of the Bible. I don't carry idols or graven images. Jesus is not on a cross, or in a tomb. God's spirit is not in the arc of the covenant either. What, exactly, did Jesus say should happen to those who harm "little ones"? What, exactly, did Jesus say would be the results of choosing sin over God's word? Just use the red letter edition, it makes it simpler.

THe fact that more negro males die as fetus, and from the hands of other negros, then all other forms of death combined, should result in a call to action by Sharpten and Jackson. Why is that not their rally cry? Simple, personal accountability is not welcome on the left. Racebaiting allows for more excuses and more dead humans. God's Word works.

socal2 says

Needless to say, 911 calls is hardly "evidence" that Zimmerman is a racist.

They aren't proof, but they are evidence. 46 calls and they all relate to black men? There are no suspicious white people?

Dan8267 says

They aren't proof, but they are evidence. 46 calls and they all relate to black men? There are no suspicious white people?

Who is reporting that all 46 calls relate to black men? Link please.

Seriously, how many major facts have the media screwed up (or distorted) so far? Don't you think it would be prudent to step back a bit and stop fanning the flames and making accusations of racism that you can't back up with "facts"?

Dan8267 says

And although you might not think that there's sufficient reason to believe that Zimmerman was motivated by racial bigotry that day, there's a hell of a lot of Americans with no vested interest who do.

Alot of Americans think Obama is a Muslim or born outside our country too. Are you really pointing to the dumb lynch mob (who has been fed distorted information from the Media) as an excuse to accuse people of racism?

FFS - dude. Will you not be happy unless they begin race riots in Florida over this one sad case? It is completely irresponsible for our media and commenters to sensationalize this story and gin up race hatred the way they've done the past few weeks. Now the hype has been built up so high, we can only expect riots and violence if the evidence points to Zimmerman's innocence.

Why does this one case warrant so much hysteria and sensationalism while we hear absolutely nothing about all of the other murders that happened the same week, month or year? Is there an epidemic of hispanic neighborhood watch dudes shooting innocent people that requires this level of national attention?

Dan8267 says

Zimmerman had called 911, 46 times during those 15 months

I notice that the "esteem" Psychology Today is still reporting false information. The 46 calls spanned over 8 years, not 15 months.

Dan8267 says

OMG! Shaved heads are the white equivalent of hoodies! Watch out Mr. Clean!

I've got to give props to bacon for flipping that issue.

For me this is where racism enters this whole discussion. Whether or not Zimmerman is racist or racially profiled Martin is irrelevant to the situation. Basically, you don't need to explore Zimmerman's personal racism to come to the conclusion he did something wrong. Do I think Zimmerman behaved as he did out of racial bias? Yes. Do I think he did it because he hates black people? No.

Where racism enters into this discussion is in the fact that it is assumed by many that Martin must have been the aggressor and must have been doing something suspicious.

It's also in the fact that the assumption also exists that Martin had absolutely no grounds for feeling threatened by Zimmerman and than Martin had no personal right to self defense. Why should he be scared of a some random self proclaimed neighborhood watch captain? What possible reason could he have for feeling threatened by a stranger chasing him through the neighborhood?

The important thing to remember is that Zimmerman chased down someone who lived in the complex, effectively instigating and forcing a conflict, and then shot and killed that individual. If this is how Zimmerman acts in public toward his neighbors he has no business living around anyone or owning a firearm.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Zimmerman had called 911, 46 times during those 15 months

I notice that the "esteem" Psychology Today is still reporting false information. The 46 calls spanned over 8 years, not 15 months.

Reports on this seem to contradict. Some say months some say years.