It's only news when it's "black and white" crime.

Black teenagers shoot each other every day in Chicago but, you never hear a word about that.

It doesn't help to advance their agenda of dividing people along racial lines.

Actually, he was American (born in Virginia). His mother was from Peru and his father was German-American. But, identified himself as 'Hispanic' on voter registration records. Ironically, his mother had some black ancestry, through her maternal grandfather. The media spun the narrative as white vs. black but, I don't think Zimmerman ever saw it that way.

Its funny because most Hispanics supported Trayvon and not George. George did his first and possibly only post trial interview in Spanish on Univision and most Latinos I know were upset he got away with it.

Maybe because the media kept stressing the 'white' angle and ignored the fact that he was Hispanic? Zimmerman wasn't racist against black people. Two examples:

1. He and a black friend started a business together
2. He participated in a protest on his college campus for a homeless black man who was beaten by a white cop

Didn't he also go to prom or a school dance with a black girl?

And he was tutoring two poor black kids the same day of the shooting...

Also, his gun was black

As was his girlfriend's eye.

Also his butthole is black.

nope

Yeah, an it was overtly clear from the 911 call that he did not profile Trayvon as a black kid, he was a suspicious person before skin color was even factored in.

A thread about the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident is no place for facts!

Well it was clear until MSNBC got their hands on it.

Except for the fact that he only caught Zimmerman's attention because he believed him to be another black kid he'd seen in the area.

That just kind of throws a wrench into whatever the fuck you were attempting to say.

This bullshit is the same as "well we elected Obama so we're a post-racial country."

"George Zimmerman did two or three positive things with black people in his life so he can't possibly be a racist."

I'm not saying Zimmerman is or he isn't a racist, but this argument is wholly unconvincing.

Well parts of it are. Not everything. There is a point when you have to look at the copious amounts of evidence to suggest he wasn't racist rather than your comparison of we have a black president which is only a single instance.

TIL: Two things are copious, one is single, and not.

Are you honestly dim enough to suggest there isn't other things about the case to suggest that conclusion? I'd hope not.

Immediate jump to ad hominem noted. Resulting useless opinion discarded.

You're easily the most useless robot ever constructed.

Bitch, you don't know my life!

What has to be done in your book to prove that he isn't a racist? Do you think he dated that girl, tutored those children, and rallied for that abused homeless man, all while thinking himself, "Those fucking niggers." Is that honestly what you think? It's a racist country, but George Zimmeran is pretty clearly not racist.

What has to be done in your book to prove that he isn't a racist?

I'm not interested in anyone proving they're not a racist. That sort of thing is unprovable. That's why allegations that someone is a racist are so toxic. There's no way to prove otherwise.

I think it's very likely that George Zimmerman didn't think "those niggers" at any point in his life. (Which, oddly, is the only thing someone can do that everyone will agree is racist.) I also think he would not have followed me around with his gun if I, a clean cut white guy, had been on the block in my hoodie.

This is because there's a strong cultural stereotype that specifically associates black men with crime in the U.S. and psychologists have found that many people have an unconscious link between the two.

Does that make someone a racist? I guess it depends on your definition. If you consciously like black people but unconsciously paint them as criminals, I wouldn't say you're a racist. But you need to be able to recognize that in yourself and let your conscious mind influence your decision-making.

Unfortunately, it's clear that George Zimmerman is an idiot in general and I don't think he had the presence of mind to do that.

TL:DR; Nobody can prove anyone is not a racist. George might truly not be racist on a conscious level, but probably had subconscious associations about black people that influenced his decision-making.

Except he was the neighborhood watch captain and multiple houses had been broken into in his neighborhood. Then he sees someone wearing a hoody walking in between houses in the middle of the night. I would have been suspicious too. I doubt race even came into in the dark. Just a concern for his neighborhood.

Well, as long as you doubt it, that's all that's important.

I doubt race even came into in the dark.

Zimmerman mentioned Martin's race twice during his 911 call.

But it wasn't brought up until the 911 operator asked.

I know, but that's besides the point because you were saying you doubted that Martin's race came across in the dark.

Well that's wha I was saying. It was almost an afterthought. It didn't become an issue until first the 911 operator asked, and then when MSNBC got a hold of the tape they edited to make it sound like that was the primary concern.

This is because there's a strong cultural stereotype that specifically associates black men with crime in the U.S. and psychologists have found that many people have an unconscious link between the two.

Interestingly, these stereotypes translate into real numbers in the real world.

Could it be that black men are psychologically associated with crime because proportionately, BLACK MEN COMMIT MORE CRIME than any other sector of American society?

NAH!

EDIT: Added "proportionately" and "American"

Sure. Stereotypes are when people take a trait that does exist in the population and apply it to EVERYONE in the population. In this particular case Trayvon didn't deserve it.

FYI - save for Zimmerman since he's got latino heritage from his mother, Hispanic people are considered white. To be hispanic, you need to be of Spanish (and therefore european) decent. Most people around the world recognize that. America seems to be the only group who thinks that being white means being white and speaking english.

Look at all the not white people

http://i.imgur.com/tmae32o.jpg

You've never seen Cameron Diaz, Martin Sheen, or Louis C.K.? They're all Latinos. Latino or Hispanic is not a race. It's a cultural identifier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_%28demonym%29

First your designation is wrong secondly they're American so their "cultural identifier" wouldn't be Hispanic (not counting areas taken over) and lastly the 3 you chose are white. White people still exist in central and south America.

White

Not a single white but mixed race

TIL Martin Sheen's actual name is Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estévez. Hard to get more Latino than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania

[deleted]

Look at the descriptions.

So he isn't racist, he just hates kids. I think I'd get along with the guy after all.

it doesn't matter if he has a black friend or not. he saw treyvon and immediately thought he was suspicious. he wore a hoodie(which wasn't even baggy) and a cargo-ish skinny jeans cuffed at the bottom. if that kid was some Asian, would he go after him after the dispatcher says 'don't go'? lol

I think Zimmerman would have acted the same had he spotted ANY color youth doing the same thing. He was a security guard. There had been a string of robberies in the area. Security was on high-alert. The question that Travyon supporters NEVER address is this:

"Why didn't Trayvon just go inside his house?"

He was right there. If he had just gone home, and gone inside, and locked the door nothing would have happened. Zimmerman didn't shoot until after he was attacked.

[deleted]

Punching someone who hasn't yet attacked you isn't really defense.

Yeah, usually that's called "assault"

*Battery

[deleted]

Obviously, you have never read the actual wording of the 'stand your ground' law from Florida.

You prefer to throw out straw men instead.

[deleted]

According to the court records -- Zimmerman was bleeding.

The felony (i.e., criminal activity) was "assault" and it was committed by Trayvon against Zimmerman.

[deleted]

According to the court records, Trayvon didn't "defend himself" -- he assaulted Zimmerman. If you run up and hit someone it's not self defense. The first person to strike is the one committing the crime.

To add to your many good points, even if Zimmerman threw the first punch, he STILL would have been legally justified in shooting Martin, had he been on his back screaming for help while being pummeled by Martin as the evidence suggested. See the "Justifiable Use of Force by an Aggressor" section of the law.

He wasn't right there at the house he was staying, it was atleast 100-200 yards away. That isn't shit distance if someone has a gun. or to a guy who is chasing you through an entire complex.

Zimmerman didn't pull out his gun and chase Trayvon. You have completely misrepresented the facts of the case. Zimmerman didn't try to block his path or restrain him. Nothing was stopping Trayvon from going into his house.

The girl Trayvon was on the phone with as he was being followed did not indicate that he felt the man was armed. He did state that he was being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" and was going to do kick his ass or confront him...I forget the wording but it suggested he was going to fight him. Would Trayvon have stayed to fight an adult black male?

Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter because murder just did not apply in this case.

The judge decided that no murder or manslaughter charges apply.

It was purely self defense.

[deleted]

perhaps he did have his gun out

You're speculating. The facts of the case (as heard by the court) do not match your version of the story.

If i followed a woman in the same way that george followed trayvon

Most women who are being followed by a creep are going to go to a safe area. It's foolish to try to take on some unknown opponent. He might have a gun. He might know kung fu. He might be on meth. If a woman was 100-200 yards from her house and being followed, she'd run home, lock the doors, and call the police. If the guy tackled her or grabbed her then she would be forced to defend herself. But, a pre-emptive strike on an unknown opponent is the worst defense strategy possible.

That's what the prosecution is coming to terms with. Not murder, but not legal ask things considered.

He may have acted the same but had he shot a white teen the media would've spun it a different way. It would've been ”Hispanic man shoots unarmed white teen” and Zimmerman would be in prison right now.

i'm not sure if the media would have even reported it. The only reason why you know of zimmerman is because of how it went down. If it went down some other way you more than likely would never have heard of him.

I don't know, the media likes to sensationalize anything having to do with race. Especially when it involved white vs. a minority. That's why they pushed Zimmerman as white, because Hispanic vs. black is just another case of minority violence.

I doubt the media would have been against him if it was a white teen.

Al Sharpton wouldn't have cared enough to get media attention on it. If Zimmerman was black and got convicted he would have gotten the govenor to pardon him.

Not true, it would've been just another case of black on black crime and no one would've cared. Now had Zimmerman been black and killed a white teen, he'd be on death row right now.

Nah Al Sharpton would have gotten the governor to pardon him.

You're probably right.

The media is manipulating us to push an agenda.

It only works if you let them.

Downvoted but it's absolutely the truth. Even after all the facts of media manipulation, bias and propaganda, people still believe what they're told to.

The media would have completely ignored it.

Whoever is downvoting this is delusional

Thank you, I love how some people like to think that white privilege isn't real.

I will say that it wouldn't make it past local news and no one would talk about it. It would be an open shut case that some crazy spic shot a well behaved white kid with great potential.

You're probably right on that but Zimmerman would've definitely went to prison in that case.

Yes

People are downvoting it not because his point isn't correct. They're downvoting it because they missed the point entirely. It's all about the media spinning it to sell. When he/she said that as a response they missed the point that it was what everyone else was saying.

You're dumb.

If it was dark, you see a hooded person slowly walking through your private neighborhood (where home owners had reported burglaries days/weeks prior) and it is your job to protect the homes..you're going to shout out and ask what race he is? What happens if he says black? Do you avoid him because if anything happens you'll get political backlash?

But yeah, clearly he just saw a black kid from however far away he was that night and decided to approach him because of that and only that.

I would hope my neighborhood watch, even the volunteers, would treat any unknown persons walking around in my community with an air of suspicion. If not, they wouldn't really be doing their job.

I see anyone wearing a hoodie and looking fucking sketch I'm gonna be suspicious too. It's called instincts.

Actually, it does matter. If he was really a racist, would he be friends with a black person? No. He went after Trayvon because he was suspicious, not because he was black. End of story.

He racially profiled Trayvon that night. Which is racist behavior.

I disagree. I think that he was acting like a security guard. He saw someone acting suspicious and did what he was trained to do. Trayvon could have gone home and avoided the whole incident.

He was not a security guard.

He's on record talking about how he thought Trayvon was another person all together. LOL @ saying Trayvon could have gone home. Blame the victim.

Zimmerman was the victim. A victim who fought back.

Weird.. victims don't usually pick fights.

That's true. Trayvon picked the fight.

So now you're saying Trayvon was the victim. I play this game w\ my 3 year old too. He's pretty quick to realize what's happening.

Sorry, I edited my comment before you had time to post your infantile response to my typo.

What was stopping Trayvon from going home? Nothing was between him and his front door. He could have gone to his house, gone inside, and locked the door.

You're using the " if a person doesn't want to be murdered they should stay inside" argument.... ok.

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I'm done arguing with you.

That's what you're saying though... If you were a judge you'd let rapists off because that woman knew she shouldn't have been out in public where there was a chance of getting raped.

Are you kidding? At most he's saying if someone doesn't want to be murdered, don't go attack a fucking stranger.

First of all, we all need to realize that nobody knows for certain ( other than zimmerman ). That being said, we also are all aware of the context to which these events happened.

Zimmerman wasn't just out on a walk, walking casually past trayvon or something like that. Although, for anybody arguing Zimmerman's case, that would literally make the pro zimmerman case 1000 times stronger.

No, he was driving... saw a black kid whom he mistook for another black kid he'd seen before and stopped his grocery trip short to stalk a teenage kid.

Then after agreeing to meet with police at a neutral location he apparently decided to do something other than that, and of course other than looking for a street sign. Because who the fuck needs a street sign when the police are en route to meet you at a location that's already been established>?

Maybe someone should of called the police and then listened to what dispatch advised them to. I'm sure that would of been the smartest thing to do...

It's a minor point. If it were me, I'd have listened to the dispatcher. It is a smart thing to do.

Zimmerman wasn't stopping Trayvon from going home. He wasn't restraining him or blocking his path. Trayvon could have gone to his house, locked the door, and called the police himself.

The facts of the case are that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman instead of going home.

The media portrayed Trayvon like a 12 year old little angel. He wasn't.

I'm not saying that George murdered a young guy with skittles, I'm saying it was manslaughter. Had the DA pursued those charges they would have stuck. George did not do the right thing, but that doesn't make it murder. He created the entire situation. He is an adult. Trayvon was a minor. The situation was out of his control. The cops did have been called in to assist from the beginning.... oh lol forgot.

If zim had just gone home or not been carrying his gun. Zim was NOT a security guard, neighborhood watch forbids guns. You just like making excuses. Both people fucked up, zim was not some innocent victim. He started the whole fucking thing. Had zim just gone home, none of this would have happened.

And more houses could have been robbed and someone else could have killed Trayvon for stealing their shit. Coulds and what ifs don't really add much. All Zimmerman did wrong was try to protect his neighborhood. And was attacked for it. Defended himself and got slandered throughout the media.

The facts of the case don't substantiate your opinions. This case has already been decided by a judge in a court of law. This is exactly the type of manipulation and distortion that he media was trying to create. The purpose was to stir up racial tensions and push gun control.

what kind of retarded "security guard" goes against what the dispatcher ordered and follow the innocent kid anyway? how do you know trevon was acting "suspicious" ? before Zimmerman and Trevon had any interaction, trevon was just minding his own business, how is that acitng "suspicious"?

You are ignoring the facts of the case and substituting your own.

Someone didn't follow the case. Sounds like you have been mislead.

How do you know Trayvon wasn't acting "suspicious"?

The fact of the matter is this: Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, Zimmerman did what was necessary and shot Trayvon. This was found to be the case by the jury.

Could have gone home? He was going home, wasn't he? He just took a circuitous route. There is no crime in that. Zimmerman shot a kid who fought back after he got jumped for no reason other than Zimmerman thought he was up to no good. That's some pure A-Grade bullshit that he got away with it.

He was going home, wasn't he?

Why didn't he go inside the house and lock the door?

Zimmerman shot a kid who fought back

You apparently ignored the facts in the case (as decided by the court). The facts don't support your point of view.

Zimmerman shot a kid who fought back You apparently ignored the facts in the case (as decided by the court). The facts don't support your point of view.

Right on the money. Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon because he is a trigger happy racist, nor did he brutally beat himself after shooting Trayvon... He shot Trayvon for attacking him... Its as easy as that.

Why didn't zim just go home and call the police? He is not a cop or security guard?

Yeah and OJ was found not guilty by the courts. The courts get shot wrong all the time.

I asked the question first and, I'm still waiting for an answer.

He had called the police many times with no result leading up to that including that night. Pretty common knowledge.

Go inside what house? He wasn't near his home. And the facts as decided by the court were dodgy at best. If you are saying that Trayvon sought out Zimmerman and attacked him and then was shot because of it, then that is just flat out craziness.

Trayvon sought out Zimmerman and attacked him and then was shot because of it

Those were the facts of the case -- as decided by a court of law.

That's not my opinion. That was a decision made by a judge. Go read the documents.

If you are saying that Trayvon sought out Zimmerman and attacked him and then was shot because of it, then that is just flat out craziness.

If you read the actual court notes Trayvon realized he was being followed and doubled backed on Zimmerman. When Zimmerman lost track of him he turned around to return to his car and Trayvon confronted him. Words were exchanged, egos collided, and Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. During the struggle Trayvon saw Zimmerman's gun and went for it. The two struggled for the gun and Zimmerman managed to pull the trigger killing Trayvon while Trayvon was on top of him.

All of this was in the court notes and was decided by the court to be the facts.

Could have gone home? He was going home, wasn't he?

No he stopped going home when he turned around to attack Zimmerman.

Zimmerman shot a kid who fought back after he got jumped for no reason other than Zimmerman thought he was up to no good.

Umm Trayvon nearly murdered Zimmerman, Self defense is a good reason

That's some pure A-Grade bullshit that he got away with it.

Thankfully the jury actually heard the facts of the case and not whatever bullshit abc/msnbc were spouting.

Everything in that case looks like Trayvon circles back around.

Most people supported Trayvon and not George. This is just because of the blatant media bias against him.

Exactly. He was painted as the bad guy by the mainstream media. The reporting had nothing to do with the actual facts of the court case. It was designed to stir up racial tension and push for more gun control.

The first images contrasting a 2-3 year old picture of 14/15 year old Trayvon with a mugshot of Zimmerman pretty much summed up how the media felt about the case.

[deleted]

He wasn't a "kid" -- he was a 19 year old adult and looked nothing like those cute pictures the media showed from when he was 12.

TM was 17 at the time, he had turned 17 3 weeks prior to the incident. But you're right, the People Magazine cover in particular was ridiculous.

He wasn't a "kid" -- he was a 19 year old adult

Trayvon was 17, by about three weeks.

Sorry. You're right. Thanks for saying something.

But, he wasn't the cute little 6th grader they were showing on the news photos.

[deleted]

I see what you did there... you took my response and used it as your own. Brilliant!

So, why did you call him a "kid"? Do you refer to most 19 year olds as kids?

Why did the media refer to him as a kid?

[deleted]

No where in the world is 19 considered anything legally but an adult. You are probably one of those idiots that attended a "hoodie march" in protest. Lol.

[deleted]

Sorry I don't speak dumb faggot language.

[deleted]

I speak a bit of it. I mostly speak niggerlover though.

Very relevant

FTFY

He followed him, while on the phone with the police, because there had been crime in the neighborhood and the guy was walking around in the rain looking into houses. That seems pretty reasonable.

And he didn't just "shoot the kid". Trayvon was out of sight, Zimmerman was walking back to his car. Then Trayvon came and jumped him from behind and attacked him. When you're being attacked, and you have a gun on you (which he had every right to have), it's pretty reasonable to defend yourself with it.

[deleted]

He's the one that called the police. He wasn't trying to take justice into his own hands. He never confronted Trayvon.

Again, he followed him, while on the phone with the police, because there had been crime in the neighborhood and the guy was walking around in the rain looking into houses. Explain to me how that's not reasonable.

[deleted]

Have YOU even listened to the phone calls? Before you start accusing other people, maybe you should educate yourself, rather than making things up to justify YOUR fucked up beliefs.

Zimmerman said Martin was in the grass “leisurely looking at the house."

http://www.hlntv.com/interactive/2013/06/17/zimmerman-trayvon-map-interactive

"What did you see Trayvon doing that caught you as being suspicious?"

Zimmerman said Trayvon was looking at the same house he saw someone casing weeks before.

"You know you're gonna come under a lot of scrutiny under this, the profiling aspect of this. You understand that, right?" Serino asked.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-21/news/os-george-zimmerman-defense-documents-20120621_1_shooting-death-statements-defense

He wasn't looking into cars (other than looking at Zimmerman's truck). He was walking through the grass looking at houses.

[deleted]

http://news.genius.com/George-zimmerman-transcript-of-george-zimmermans-call-to-the-police-annotated

Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.

You're so uniformed and filled with hate. I feel sorry for you.

Totally.. Israel is in the same situation. Spill a few toddler's innards all over the street and some media outlets point out that you're murdering people...

He was kind of a douche. That doesn't make him guilty of anything, but definitely a douche.

Yeah who tutors little kids on the weekends anyway? I bet he drinks jaeger bombs.

Because pretending you're a police officer and causing an incident in which you then kill a teenage kid is bias.

Israel is totally getting a bad rap for murdering babies. seriously...

Because pretending you're a police officer

Keep proving how little you know about the case. The police offered him a fucking squad car and he turned it down. He wasn't "pretending to be a police officer".

causing an incident in which you then kill a teenage kid is bias.

Zimmerman didn't cause Trayvon to attack him you idiot. I guess you blame women who get raped for wearing short skirts too.

Bottom line... Zimmerman is on a recorded phone call with police agreeing to meet them.

He then changes his mind as he decides to go and look for Trayvon instead.

Also, Trayvon attacking him isn't even proven. That's simply speculation. At no point did Zimmerman take the stand under oath and tell his story to be subject to cross examination.

The actual events of the fight starting are still a complete mystery. However, people like yourself are happy enough to pretend to know what happened, and in doing so prove that you're a fucking idiot.

Bottom line... Zimmerman is on a recorded phone call with police agreeing to meet them.

Bottom line... The dispatcher (not police) are on a recorded trial with lawyers and a judge agreeing he told zimmerman to follow trayvon.

He then changes his mind as he decides to go and look for Trayvon instead.

Looking for a street sign/adress isn't following trayvon who he had no visual contact with.

Also, Trayvon attacking him isn't even proven.

Yes it is. Trayvon had no injuries. Zimmerman did. Rachel Jeantel said Trayvon attacked him. She was the states star witness.

At no point did Zimmerman take the stand under oath and tell his story to be subject to cross examination.

Which is his constitutional right.

The actual events of the fight starting are still a complete mystery.

No they aren't if you followed the facts of the case.

However, people like yourself are happy enough to pretend to know what happened, and in doing so prove that you're a fucking idiot.

Sorry I did research? I guess I should just listen to what abc/msnbc tell me to think like you.

You don't even know what Trayvon had on him that night when he died so don't presume to think I don't know what happened.

OH SHIT... you're going to bring up the star witness that all George Zimmerman supporters totally discounted and called a liar and now claim she said Trayvon attacked Zimmerman?

Have you seen the first 48?

You sir... are amazing. If I had reddit gold to give, I'd give you some for making me laugh.

OH SHIT... you're going to bring up the star witness that all George Zimmerman supporters totally discounted and called a liar and now claim she said Trayvon attacked Zimmerman?

I never called her a liar. I'm 100% sure she heard wet grass. I'm 100% sure she heard Trayvon call Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" proving his racial/homophobic motivations for attacking Zimemrman.

Have you seen the first 48?

Oh god you've been trolling me this whole time haven't you!?

That moment was glorious. One of many times I burst out laughing during the trial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhgLtjjvHtQ

You sir... are amazing. If I had reddit gold to give, I'd give you some for making me laugh.

Back at you brother!

I can't stress this video enough. You have to watch it. It's hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhgLtjjvHtQ

even worse, they invented a new label to keep the racial pressure on Zimmerman, "White-Hispanic"

You're a fool. Hispanic isn't a race. It's a cultural identifier created in the 1900's by us to add another layer to "us vs. them". Plenty of Hispanics pass for white and could even have white names (I'm one). But Hispanics can be white (Cameron Díaz, Martin Sheen), brown (George Lopez), or black (Sammy Sosa, Zoe Saldana). That label has been in the census for a while. And FYI, George Zimmerman is a white Hispanic.

I've seen that category on forms in California for decades. It's not as new as you think.

California shouldn't be a barometer for anything

Yes, because an extremely diverse state that spans the majority of the West Coast isn't a great example of anything just because you don't like it...

Studies in California have shown that you may be correct.

You, my friend, get the awesome response award for the day!!!

Kindly shut the fuck up. You look like a complete idiot trying to generalize an entire state so large that it could be 3-4 separate ones.

You're quite upset about this, aren't you?

Not upset, just stating facts. You know fuck-all about what you're talking about.

Relax dude, I don't want to be responsible for someone having a stroke in their office.

If it makes you feel any better, I think California is a beautiful state, and San Fransisco is my favorite city I've ever spent time in.

Um, I've identified myself on official forms as "White-Hispanic" since the late 90's when they finally had to implement it. Before then you could only choose "white" or "hispanic" which made no sense. This isn't some new description. The reason why that description came to be was predominantly because of the all the really white Cubans and Puerto Ricans giving birth to really white American citizens.

They were white but, had hispanic heritage. So the term was born.

The media created a whole new race category to advance their agenda. White-Hispanic... But Obama's a halfy and he's just "black". I guess we can't understand since we don't have a fancy ivy league degree like the elitist libs do.

Not true. Hispanic individuals who identify as/pass for white has been a recognized group, at least in sociology, for several decades now. If you look at demographic information about the USA for the past two censuses, most analyses will mention that a considerable amount of people identifying as "white" could also accurately be reported as Latino/Hispanic. Not the majority, of course, but certainly a non-negligible amount.

Now, you're still free to think the concept is bullshit, but it wasn't invented by the media solely for the Trayvon case.

Edit: really? Downvoted for correcting mistaken information? White-identifying Hispanic has been a category in sociological texts for decades. Wouldn't you rather your arguments be factual?

He identified as Hispanic though

Yeah these guys are idiots. I had Cuban parents who came over in the 70's, I was born an American citizen, and I'm white as snow. I have always identified myself as White first because I'm freaking white and on top of that an American. This was also during the late 80's and early 90's on all the school forms and you could only check White OR Hispanic. It wasn't till later(late 90's early 2000's) that they started separately asking for race where I would select "white" and then heritage where I would select "hispanic".

People like me are why that White-Hispanic category was created a long time ago. I just looked like your average white American until I opened my mouth and not only spoke perfect English but, perfect Spanish as well.

Didn't they even make him white on Southpark?

Nah, son. You were just taught in school that Hispanic =/= white, when the reality is that Hispanic isn''t even a race. It's a word used to describe people that are either of Spanish ancestry or speak a language from Spain. You can be white and have blue eyes and speak spanish and be a Hispanic.

Point is, if he had his mothers maiden name, and/or had the first name "Jorge," I don't think there would've been half the media sensation.

To pretend that the fact that Trayvon was black had not role in the picture is ludicrous. I don't think it was a black vs. white thing so much as a "why do we assume things about young black men" thing.

Edit- Well, at least three of you are staunch racists that believe young black men walking the street at night are something to be concerned about because what we can expect of them.

..."why do we assume things about young black men" thing

If it quacks like a duck... it probably is a duck. The failure was with Trayvon's parents.

They needed to beat the crap out of that kid and make him fly right. Too often you read about young black men committing crimes, like armed robbery, and their family says: "He's really a good boy". No. When you commit armed robbery, you're NOT a good boy. If your child is committing armed robbery or running in a gang then you have failed as a parent.

When you see kids starting to fall in with the wrong crowd or exhibiting criminal behavior, they need to be dealt with strongly like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APrV0UOR-lo

Black people probably beat their kids more than any other race. If you spent 10 mins of your time looking it up, youll find and overwhelming amount of violent crime offenders were beaten or abused at home.

What you're saying is we should teach people not to be violent, by being violent towards them. How does that make sense? All beating your kids does is teach them they can control other people through fear, anger, and violence.

Such is your case. You just want to take your anger out on someone, not correct behavior. And it's been studied for a very long time punishment and worsening punishment does little to nothing to correct behavior.

Not to mention, you weren't even there, you don't know either of these people's life stories, and the dude in the video probably laughed at his dad after, or went back to school to take his anger out on someone cause he can't even find peace and comfort in his home.

All beating your kids does is teach them they can control other people through fear, anger, and violence.

I disagree. It teaches them respect, consequences and limitations. I'm not against other methods of punishment as long as it works. Honey is better than vinegar. But, if the nice approach doesn't work, then you have to find methods that do work. Putting kids on a "time out" or grounding them is why they're out of control to begin with. Nobody wants to be a parent anymore. They want to be friends with the kid and be seen as the "cool dad" instead of the disciplinarian. Your job as a parent is to set limits and tell the kids "no".

BTW.... the guy in the video is the kid's uncle, not his dad. It takes the participation of the ENTIRE family... not just one parent. If every one of the kid's relatives told him "being in a gang and committing crime is unacceptable" --- and then beat his ass when he didn't comply -- he would get the message.

Disagree all you want but statistics don't lie. Don't encourage violence just because you personally believe it's a solution, even though all sociological and psychological studies say otherwise.

I'm not arguing theory at this point. Facts are facts. The majority of criminals, sex offenders, abusers, and people with violent psychological issues are people who got hit as kids. Just because your parents hit you doesn't mean you should. And don't be a lazy ass parent that can't find any other solutions besides being violent.

Go do some research and try to enlighten your methods instead of descending into barbarianism that already plagues the black community with high emotionally charged and religious beliefs that violence is an acceptable form of discipline and control.

Sorry, Dr. Spock doesn't count as "facts". It's a bunch of psychobabble B.S.. Let's give the kids "time outs" and tell them to think about what they did wrong. If that doesn't work, we can tell them they're grounded.... THAT will stop the bad behavior. Spare the rod, spoil the child. We have a bunch of SPOILED children in this country. Parents need to step up and act like parents. Quit reasoning with children and be the adult for once.

I hope you're never around anyone's kids. You're the traditionalist holding society back with outdated backwards thinking. My parents beat the shit out of me. Did that keep me out of jail? No. Were they able to stop me from getting beaten and robbed at school? No. Were they able to stop me from getting beat in the streets? No. They beat me at home, beat me in the streets, and beat me at school. Now I have to see therapists and take medication because I'm on probation for my violent behavior.

But besides using myself as an example, go do some real research. Like I said, numbers don't lie.

I will same the exact same thing about you. At least in your case we were both here to watch you be scum.

Why am I a scum? For pointing out the truth?

No, for thinking what you're saying is the end all be all truth.

I'm entitled to my opinions and you're entitled to yours.

Notice that I didn't call you any names when you expressed your opinion?

What is the point of name calling? It doesn't help to advance your position.

"If I had a son he would look like Trayvon". - BHO

Keep stirring the pot.

Isn't this statement from BHO, on its face racist.. He was making the statement because Trayvon was black and for no other reason that would have made him his son? If the color of ones skin should in fact bear no impact on a persons character, this could mean that even George could have been BHO's son..

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Oh well. His children aren't little anymore either.

It is too bad that this statement was uttered sooo long ago yet we cannot seem to live our lives this way. No matter what we do there will always be racists but using the race card to gin up some type of desired response is criminal. Dr Martin Luther Kind, Jr. would be so disappointed with us.

So is Obama racist for pointing out his own race (and by implication the long and fraught history of racial animus towards black people for the entire history of the United States, the country of which he is leader)?

King's dream was that racism would be a thing of the past. Obama was expressing his opinion (in the whole speech) that racism is not a thing of the past. Google any racial epithet you can think of and you'll see that he's right. You are literally mad over nothing. Take a breath.

I really don't care that he's half white.

George could have been BHO's son..

That's not really the way DNA works. Obama was pointing out the very true fact that people with brown skin and nappy hair are often treated poorly, for no good reason, including Obama in the days before he was president. That was the context of the speech that quote was taken from.

Affirming that rape exists does not make you a rapist, or "murder exists" does not make you a murderer, etc.

Right, of course BHO made this statement on the pure genetic argument. Your right.

If you actually read or listen to the whole speech I think his several points are quite clear, thoughtful, and unambiguously un-racist - unless you consider just mentioning racism as "proof" of racism... which is stupid.

Yes, keep repeating this, skin color doesn't. Genes do.

Skin color =/= race.

But then again, people on here think race is a social construct...

He could have just been saying it as though he's the father of us all so when one of us loses a child, he loses a vote...ahem...child. He's also the child of a mixed marriage so he doesn't see color.

I think it was inappropriate for Obama to comment on the event because it was under investigation by local and federal law enforcement but I don't understand why people think it was an incendiary remark about race.

The point is that black people in America are associated with crime, by racists and by non-racists who carry unconscious biases due to the prevalence of that theme in our culture. That's a fact.

I see little evidence that George Zimmerman was truly a racist. But I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have followed me around with his gun, suspecting me of being a burglar, if he had seen me on that same block. What Obama was trying to say is that black men carry a stigma. Maybe that stigma played no part in the Zimmerman case. Maybe it did. But it's something we should keep in mind whenever a black man is wrongly accused of a crime.

Treyvon Martin is not 100% innocent here. A lot of the character evidence was suppressed, especially by the media, who continued to paint Zimmerman as a racist. The same with the evidence that Zimmerman was the complete opposite of racist. Treyvon liked to fight and definitely threw the first punch. Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked so he pulled his gun and shot him. Sounds reasonable to me. Especially if Treyvon was smashing his head into the sidewalk. He probably wasn't thinking to clearly. There was also evidence that Treyvon was involved in some of the burglaries that Zimmerman suspected him of. He had stolen property that came from some of the houses that were burglarized. Didn't see that evidence on the tv.

Treyvon Martin is not 100% innocent here.

Trayvon's innocence is 100% irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Unless you're arguing that Trayvon was actually in the process of robbing or casing a house at the time George Zimmerman called 911, which there is no evidence for, and Zimmerman has never alleged. He was just "suspicious" because he was walking around in a hoodie and was carrying the stigma of a black man in a hoodie.

Treyvon liked to fight and definitely threw the first punch.

I watched almost the entire trial from gavel to gavel and there's no "definitely" about it. We have no idea what happened between Trayvon disappearing from George on the street and Trayvon on top of George. It's quite likely that Trayvon through the first punch, sure, but it's far from a definite fact.

Even if he did throw a first punch, we have no idea if Zimmerman had brandished his gun or something, which is an act of force.

There's not enough evidence to show Zimmerman was guilty of any crime, but he disobeyed 911 and went looking for trouble while carrying a gun. As a supporter of people carrying guns, I think it's essential that people who carry guns do not look for trouble or put themselves in situations where they might have to use it. That's what Zimmerman did and that's why I think he's a moron.

There was also evidence that Treyvon was involved in some of the burglaries that Zimmerman suspected him of. He had stolen property that came from some of the houses that were burglarized. Didn't see that evidence on the tv.

I wasn't able to find any support for this other than on conservative blogs. The Miami Herald reported that Trayvon was found with an assortment of jewelry in his bag from school but there was no conclusive evidence it was stolen, especially from Zimmerman's neighborhood, and he was never charged with any crime.

Did he have a receipt?

[deleted]

Did you just say Obama almost never talks about race?

I take it you don't live in the US or follow much of what he says.

He was identified, by the media, as a "white hispanic" born in the United States. His father is white, born in the US, while his mother is Hispanic, born in Peru.

For comparison purposes, President Obama is a "black" man, born in the United States to a white, US born mother, and black, Kenyan born father.

Go figure.

He was identified, by the media, as a "white hispanic"

that's not just a media identification. race and ethnicity are two different things.

For comparison purposes, President Obama is a "black" man

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/04/15/most-americans-say-obama-is-not-black-heres-why-that-pew-poll-is-wrong/

A Washington Post poll is hardly evidence to the contrary.

it's more evidence than you provided, though

Well, what I spoke to was/is common knowledge. President Obama is, and will historically be known as, the first black president. Not the first mixed-race president, but the first black president. My response to OP was simply keeping in line w/ the conversation of how the media places importance on certain issues and distorts reality for monetary gain.

When citing information, and this will serve you well in the future, an online opinion poll, from what some would consider a partisan news organization, is not sufficient proof of anything.

what I linked to is an article about data from a Pew Research Center report, not an online poll conducted by WaPo.

my point is, just because you say Obama is a "black" man, and/or will historically be known as the first black president doesn't guarantee it. that report is just one example of how it is not settled.

What do you think?

That error9900 got a touch of the derp-brush.

He was intentionally portrayed white. That's the only reasons there was such a shit storm.

Also gun control divide.

He was of a Spanish decent. If his parents' last names were swapped (his mother who's maiden name was Mesa and was of Afro-Peruvian decent) things would have been a lot different. We suck as a people.

If he's not black, he's white...

Nobody said he was white. People did say that he would've been treated differently if he murdered a white boy.

Kinda similar to how he racially profiled Trayvon and believed that he was another black person who'd been reported in the area. Then come to find out he was just walking home.

You are ignoring the facts of the case and substituting your own.

Trayvon could have gone inside his house and avoided the whole incident.

George Zimmerman could have stayed in his car, not gone in armed pursuit of an individual not accused of a crime and gone to his own home and avoided the whole incident.

You're modifying the facts of the case to suit your opinion. Zimmerman was found innocent. The court of law based their decision on evidence and facts. Your viewpoint is different from the court. So, you must not be basing your opinion on the same evidence or facts.

Zimmerman was found innocent.

*Not guilty.

I agree with the verdict but innocent and not guilty are not the same.

Actually it is a big deal in America that people are "innocent until proven guilty".

You can't prove a null hypothesis. You can only fail to reject it.

Yes, the courts in this country never make any mistakes. Hm, whatever happened to that OJ Simpson guy? Did he ever find the guy who willed his wife?

Oh.. not this shit again.

George Zimmerman is on a phone recording w\ the police department agreeing to meet them at a neutral location. Then he changes his mind and persues Trayvon.

This is all on audio recording you can look up. Anything you're saying about Trayvon is speculation with nothing factual to back it up.

Zimmerman wasn't holding Trayvon. He wasn't standing in front of him. Nothing was stopping Trayvon from going to his house, going inside, and locking the door.

Bottom line w\ this line of thinking is that Zimmerman is on audio recording with the police department agreeing to meet police at a neutral location. Police were en route at that point.

He then does a 180 and says, never mind.. I'm going to pretend I'm the police despite the police being en route and despite having just seconds before agreed to meet police at a neutral location.

This is all documented on audio recording.

Irrelevant.

Zimmerman wasn't holding Trayvon. He wasn't standing in front of him. Nothing was stopping Trayvon from going to his house, going inside, and locking the door

You can't argue one guy has the right to follow you home and shoot you to death legally if you confront him for it without arguing that if someone follows you home you can confront them. What's this duty to retreat shit your coming up with in a stand your ground setting?

You got the facts of the case completely wrong. Go read the court documents. Also, you don't understand the definition of the 'stand your ground' law in Florida. Go look it up.

You're just parroting back phrases from the television.

You're bored and lonely.

And you're a troll

How is that irrelevant? Zimmerman agreed to meet police. He was aware that they were on the way there. He was aware that he had no authority to be chasing after people, hence why he called the police in the first place.

He basically said.. yes, im going to go wait over here for the police to arrive. Then seconds later he says... never mind, I'm going to go try to do the job of the police before they arrive.

That's more relevant than any non fact anybody could ever make up about Trayvon.

You should probably shut up at this point and just plead the fifth to being an idiot. Also, I don't think he was 'standing in front of trayvon' at any point... you seem confused.

Here's the part you KEEP IGNORING:

Zimmerman wasn't holding Trayvon. He wasn't standing in front of him. Nothing was stopping Trayvon from going to his house, going inside, and locking the door.

And conversely, nothing was keeping Zimmerman from behaving like an adult and as he knew he was supposed to be acting.

This is where the crime comes in, where had they not over charged him he'd have been convicted.

He knew what he was doing was wrong. This wasn't the first young black kid he'd called the cops on. However, it was apparently the first where he decided not to wait on police to arrive and took it upon himself to do their job.

As per so many other things, this is all verified via audio recordings whereas anything about trayvon is speculation and totally unverified.

anything about trayvon is speculation

Is that another form of the "race card"?

I haven't seen that one before.

The only thing not speculative about Trayvon that night is that he went to 711 to get him some watermelon iced tea and some skittles.

Anything else is without any facts to back it up.

Whereas George Zimmerman is on the phone w\ police being recorded showing his irrational state of mind and his thought process leading to the killing.

killing self-defense shooting

FTFY

Self defense would come into play if Zimmerman wasn't the one actively looking for Trayvon.

He's on the phone agreeing to meet with police across the street. He then changes his mind and decided to play police.

That's not self defense at all. He should have been waiting for police to arrive at that point. He knew this in fact, because he had a history of calling the police and never once actively pursued the person because he knew he wasn't supposed to.

If we're both in a public place, I can walk around and stare at you all day long. You can tell me to stop. I can say no. There are no laws against that. I can even take pictures of you if I want. If you don't want me staring at you then you can leave the public place. By the same token, YOU have a right to stare back and take pictures of me in a public place... and there's nothing I can do to stop you. If you run up and attack me --physically touch me-- you've broken the law and I have a right to defend myself.

In alot of instances, an adults following around a minor would raise alot of eye brows.

At the end of the day the prosecution over charged Zimmerman. Mostly racist people donated $500k to him for having killed a black kid who they assumed off the top was a thug, before any information was available or before any images of black kids giving the bird who were not trayvon were released as being trayvon...

Which kinda ties in with how Zimmerman was following him based on thinking him to be another black kid he'd seen in the area.

watermelon iced tea

lol still holding onto the iced tea bullshit

it was watermelon fruit juice cocktail...if you can't even get the basic facts of the case right why should we even bother trying to discuss it with you?

Anything else is without any facts to back it up

What about the facts that we know from the receipt at 7-11 how much money Trayvon had when he left. Easily comparable with the amount of money he had on his corpse. Why don't they match?

Well there is 7-11 video tape that gives us hints.

What was Trayvon doing for 45 minutes?

Oh, really...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/trayvonmartinbody1.jpg

Here you go...Watermelon Arizona Iced Tea fresh from the crime scene photos.

And you my friend and now just another dumb ass claiming somebody is wrong about something and then being shown that you're full of shit.

The speculation of him buying or selling something that's becoming legal in more and more states is A) complete speculation and B) irrelevant to having a guy follow him around and instigate a fight ending w\ him getting shot to death.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/trayvonmartinbody1.jpg Here you go...Watermelon Arizona Iced Tea fresh from the crime scene photos.

haha Airizona doesn't even sell a product called Watermelon Iced tea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Beverage_Company

find a picture with the front of the can and apologize to me later

And you my friend and now just another dumb ass claiming somebody is wrong about something and then being shown that you're full of shit.

haha how ironic

The speculation of him buying or selling something that's becoming legal in more and more states

Tobacco is legal in every state afaik. It is however illegal for a 17 year old to purchase.

A) complete speculation

No, it's based on facts. Which you have a hard time understanding.

B) irrelevant to having a guy follow him around and instigate a fight ending w\ him getting shot to death.

Your thinking Zimmerman instigated the fight is based on pure speculation.

LOL>>> I post pictures showing can of Arizona "Watermelon Drink" from the crime scene and you want to nit pick over me referring to it as iced tea and not juice since Arizona mostly produces iced tea in the same sized cans.

Run the fuck on kid... you're retarded.

Facts? He attempted to buy tobacco and they didn't sell it to him? Where are you going with this?

How does that in any way tie in to him having an overzealous mall cop instigate a fight with him and kill him?

It's instigation because he chose to walk around looking for Trayvon as opposed to waiting on police to arrive as they were already in route.

Other people talking about him looking for a street sign are idiots, because they discuss where the police were going to meet him... therefore looking for a street sign is pointless and redundant and likely just a lie made up to try to account for why he chose not to wait for police.

Facts? He attempted to buy tobacco and they didn't sell it to him? Where are you going with this?

LOL>>> I post pictures showing can of Arizona "Watermelon Drink" from the crime scene and you want to nit pick over me referring to it as iced tea and not juice since Arizona mostly produces iced tea in the same sized cans. Run the fuck on kid... you're retarded.

LOL kid you be runnin scared now that you know what you posted was retardedly wrong. You said Iced Tea. I said fruit juice. You were all like BAM! picture of Iced tea. And here i am all smug and laughing. Call it nit picking if you want, but I call it hilarious.

Facts? He attempted to buy tobacco and they didn't sell it to him? Where are you going with this?

I think the facts (money discrepency / video footage) prove he illegally initiated a straw purchase for a drug.

This could lead to him exhibiting suspicious behaviour.

How does that in any way tie in to him having an overzealous mall cop instigate a fight with him and kill him?

Overzealous mall cop who refused a squad car the police wanted to gift him.

We all know Trayvon initiated the fight stop with that. Just stop.

It's instigation because he chose to walk around looking for Trayvon as opposed to waiting on police to arrive as they were already in route.

Walking around the neighborhood is instigating fights? My poor dog wants to go for walks though!

I guess when Trayvon punched Zimmerman that wasn't initiating the fight to you?

Other people talking about him looking for a street sign are idiots, because they discuss where the police were going to meet him... therefore looking for a street sign is pointless and redundant and likely just a lie made up to try to account for why he chose not to wait for police.

He didn't have to wait for the police if he didn't want to. He didn't break any laws.

Damn son..

You won the argument... I better study up on my watermelon beverages before I assume a company producing mostly iced tea in tall cans would make a watermelon juice and use the same type of can.

As per the rest of your comments... context is everything. Zimmerman wasn't just out for a walk. He was driving, stopped, left his car, and followed around somebody he thought suspicious enough to report to the police... but then he was not patient enought o wait on the police?

Or he believed the police would not show up in time?

All you people are doing is pretending he was in the right when it's clear that he was not. If you call the police on somebody, it's then out of your hands.

Unless the person is attempting to harm you or breaking into your house, it's the police department's job at that point.

You won the argument... I better study up on my watermelon beverages before I assume a company producing mostly iced tea in tall cans would make a watermelon juice and use the same type of can.

Yup. It helps to know the basic facts of the case. What can I say?

All you people are doing is pretending he was in the right when it's clear that he was not. If you call the police on somebody, it's then out of your hands.

You people!?!? What do you mean by you people? You racist?

Zimmerman was clearly in the right. He had every right to be in his neighborhood. He had every right to leave his car. He had every right to follow trayvon per the dispatcher's instructions. He had every right to return to his car. There are no laws saying you have to freeze in place and hold your breath after you call 311.

TRAYVON HAD NO RIGHT TO ATTACK HIM. That is illegal.

All you are doing is blaming the victim here(Zimmerman). And it is disgusting. It is no different from the people who blame women for getting raped if they were short skirts.

Note: The police didn't arrest the painters who called the cops and followed the burglary suspect the week prior in the same neighborhood. That burglary suspect was actually arrested and tried by the same judge as Zimmerman.

Unless the person is attempting to harm you or breaking into your house, it's the police department's job at that point.

Well we know for a fact that Trayvon was harming Zimmerman. So there goes that I guess.

again.. you have no context for what you're saying.

Zimmerman wasn't out in his neighborhood, out for a walk. He was going to the store... saw a black kid, and stopped everything to stalk him.

There's still no proof trayvon attacked him. Rachel Jenteal was apparently lying and discredited for everything else she said... so thats out the window.

Zimmerman didn't open his mouth at the trial... that's out the window.

No other proof of said attack. As far as anybody knows it was self defense on Trayvon's part from a creepy ass cracka who was following a teenager at night.

Zimmerman wasn't out in his neighborhood, out for a walk. He was going to the store... saw a black kid, and stopped everything to stalk him.

haha you don't know what stalking means

There's still no proof trayvon attacked him. Rachel Jenteal was apparently lying and discredited for everything else she said... so thats out the window.

Yeah, all the injuries on Trayvon clearly show that Zimmerman started it! Oh, wait...

What do you mean, there were no injuries?

Zimmerman didn't open his mouth at the trial... that's out the window.

How dare he use his rights!

No other proof of said attack. As far as anybody knows it was self defense on Trayvon's part from a creepy ass cracka who was following a teenager at night.

Well we know he wasn't being followed and he didn't decide to go home...

Yes keep saying, if things had happened differently things would be different. Trayvon does not have yo go in his house. Zim should have waited for police. Instead he decides to play cop. Zim could have waited for the police and things would be different(your favorite way to excuse zimms shitty actions works both ways) . But keep blaming trayvon if it makes you feel better.

Yes it's ZImmerman's fault for exiting his car. Everyone knows when you get out of your car you lose all rights and are subject to racist/homophobic attacks from black teenagers.

It's every black teenagers right to attack random people in their own neighborhoods.

I bet you probably blame rape victims for wearing short skirts too.

But it isn't irrelevant is it? The police dispatcher told him not to follow, especially armed, because it wasn't his job to stalk people. The neighborhood watch specifically says that you may not have firearms or attempt to confront and vigilante someone just because he's walking around in his own neighborhood.

Zimmerman didn't confront or 'vigalante' (is that even a verb?) him.

The facts of the case are different from your media-driven opinions.

Nah, you're a troll, I shouldn't have responded in the first place :P

The police dispatcher told him not to follow

That's a straight up lie.

You know what else is on audio/video recording? The dispatcher saying that he understands that he told Zimmerman to persue Trayvon.

Now you're just stretching in order to prevent simply agreeing w\ facts I've presented to you.

Stretching? Just because you are ignorant of the facts of the case doesn't mean I am trying not to agree with you.

You are literally making stuff up and getting everything wrong about the case in a hilarious fashion.

How am I ignorant of the facts if I'm the one actually talking about facts of the case? How am I making things up if I'm talking about things that are immortally recorded and spread all over the internet?

Stretching is when lawyers are cross examining the dispatcher getting him to say things that are completely irrelevant.

You're talking about a contrived testimony weaseled out of a witness by people acting under the specific purpose of confusing witnesses and the situation so as to get zimmerman off.

How am I ignorant of the facts if I'm the one actually talking about facts of the case?

You thought Trayvon had Watermelon Iced Tea. Let that sink in.

Stretching is when lawyers are cross examining the dispatcher getting him to say things that are completely irrelevant.

Those dirty lawyers and their sneaky tricks totally got the dispatcher to say something he didn't want to! I hope he realizes he committed perjury! /s

Let's ignore it because the facts don't mesh with our abc/msnbc brainwashing! /s

What Zimmerman did before the shooting was not a crime. Neither was the shooting.

there are lots of things that are technically legal, but that doesn't mean you should do them and/or won't receive criticism for doing them

And defending yourself when a criminal is trying to beat you to death is not one of them.

Unless of course the media puts a spin on it to make it into something it isn't.

I'm specifically referring to what Zimmerman did leading up to the encounter with Martin.

I think a NW member should be following up on leads.

And I would argue that when a 911 dispatcher requests that you stop following someone and tells you police are on the way, the best choice is to stop following that person. martin was not seen doing anything illegal at that point, and martin knew he was being watched, so it's unlikely that martin would have done anything illegal after that point knowing he was being watched. the point being, it was not illegal to continue to follow martin, but there was no good reason to continue to follow martin, either, and the whole situation would never have happened if zimmerman stopped following martin when the dispatcher requested he do so.

also, the goal of a NW is typically to notify the police and let them take care of it from there.

T could have gone home. Instead of jumping someone and trying to kill them.

We didn't hear Martin's side of it, so you're assuming what he could have done, and what he did. The case, as far as I know, did not decide any of what you're speculating; it only decided that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman acted illegally. An acquittal does not prove innocence.

It was just irrational, irresponsible, and negligent. They could have easily convicted him of manslaughter had they charged him properly. They chose to go with murder and he had too much funding behind him.

Had they properly charged and prosecuted him I would be happy to see him convicted. I wouldn't want to argue it was a murder and wouldn't want to see him convicted of murder.

Yep.. They were rushed by outside forces to charge w\ murder and didn't have the case there.

A proper investigation and proper charges filed would have likely yielded a conviction.

[deleted]

In your hypothetical ... As a neighborhood watch member who was tasked to patrol the neighborhood in response to high levels of criminal activity...

I would alert the police and then continue to patrol the area if I decided it was the best course of action (I am not commiting a crime by doing this).

If the person who I was surveiling double backed and jumped me, and then proceeded to beat the crap out of me (Which IS a crime), I would hope that I would be able to draw my self-defense piece and shoot him.

Next question?

[deleted]

Yes, NW covers it's ass legally by adding the disclaimers you mentioned. Regardless. Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following Trayvon. Are you claiming that walking in the same direction as someone else is illegal? I think not.

Trayvon double backed and jumped Zimmerman and then proceeded to beat him. This is illegal.

Your claim that stand your ground allows someone to shoot someone else for simply being in the same area as another individual is ridiculous. Please provide additional proof that the law is being used to justify this sort of behavior.

You are edging pretty close to a logical fallacy here.

[deleted]

You're making a lot of assumptions on why the reasoning behind T's actions. I dispute your reasoning.

regardless of that ... The way the conflict resolved indicates how the confrontation occurred. It is evident that T jumped Z, and was beating Z when Z pulled his gun and shot T.

[deleted]

I dispute your reasoning on why T did what he did prior to the jumping. Your reasoning is along the lines of "innocent Georgie" eating his pot pie. We don't know what his reasoning was.

I think it is pretty obvious that Z did not have his gun drawn prior to the shooting. If that was the case T would have concentrated on getting the gun instead of just trying to beat Z senseless.

[deleted]

A dude going INTO a darkened area in a neighborhood that has been plagued by crime and has formed a neighborhood watch doesn't look good.

Gotta love the new criminal defense, "Your honor, we were just hanging out in this darkened area, ya-know trading pokemon cards. When this "criminal" walked by. Me and Erik jumped him and started pounding on him because we were threatened by him commiting a felony against us!"

According to the testimony Trayvon told rachel that he was outside his father's fiance's house at one point - over 70 yards away from where he would end up - therefore he could have gone inside and watched the NBA All-Star game which had been his plan for the evening. Did you watch the trial at all?

I watched most of the trial. Did you? Because after watching the star witnesses testimony and hearing people react to it, one thing was clear. And that was that nobody on the pro zimmerman side took her seriously.

Of course, unless there's a snippit that could be used to manipulate things to their ends.

And then of course with your comment we're back to that piculiar place where you're arguing that the victim of a crime should have run away and the killer who ultimately instigated all of the events could do no wrong.... zimmerman apparently could take a steamy shit in your mouth and it'd taste delicious.

unless there's a snippit that could be used to manipulate things to their ends.

They're lawyers; that's their job. Even so the defense didn't pounce on that statement of hers as much as they should have, imo. Trayvon is standing outside his house, it's dark, raining and the basketball game he wanted to watch was just starting. Almost a football field away is a creepy ass cracker/stranger with unknown intentions but instead of going inside to safety he went back and 'instigated' (your word) the attack with "What are you following me for?" GZ: "What are you doing around here?" Trayvon delivers the surprise punch breaking GZ's nose, the pummeling ensues, GZ calls for help, no one does, and ultimately shoots his attacker.

Listen, I went into the trial thinking Zimmerman was guilty. I despised the son of a bitch. Late 20's beating the shit out of some kid and then shooting him? What an asshole. I remember the first day of the trial it looked like he was having trouble staying awake. Loser. And the victim was what? 14? I'd seen the pictures. It wasn't until I heard the testimony and the truth emerged that things turned around. The State's own witnesses destroyed their own case; it was over before the defense even started. And say what you want to about Rachel, she told the truth and for that she's to be applauded.

Bottom line, I'd like to know what evidence you heard that I apparently missed for you to think that Zimmerman was guilty. By way of reference, there was a case in New York where a man saw three teens breaking into his neighbor's car, he had his girlfriend call 911 and went out to confront them. One of the teens ultimately charged the neighbor whereas the neighbor shot and killed him. He was found not guilty by way of self defense even though the kid never touched him. Search Roderick Scott if you're interested.

Well shit... if we're treating Rachel as a genuine witness now : " Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call. "He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel. Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds." "I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel. "

Let's examine that. Trayvon asks Zimmerman why he's following him. Zimmerman responds by asking what are you doing around here.

THENNNNNN She hears trayvon saying " get off " which sounds like somebody would have been grabbing him.

Of course, with Zimmerman not taking the stand we will never know the truth of the matter.

I'll respond later but for now, what caused the bump/thump that Rachel heard?

Maybe a scuffle started by Zimmerman grabbing and attempting to detain Trayvon. Resulting in him getting punched in the face, and ground and pounded by a 17 year old kid.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] Trayvon Martin drama pops up in /r/conspiracy

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

The FBI did an investigation into possible hate crime charges against Zimmerman. Not only did they find no evidence of racial bias, they found a preponderance of evidence that he wasn't racist at all. They also concluded that his suspicion of Martin was reasonable due to his attire matching that of a local gang.

But even if he did think he was another black person reported in the area, so what? Are people not allowed to use race in description of people? Or, if they are given race as a description of a suspect, are they "racially profiling" someone when they use it to be suspicious? If so, the word loses all meaning and there is absolutely nothing wrong with certain types of racial profiling.

What you're saying is nice and all ... But the fact of the matter is that with his own words, George Zimmerman describes how his suspicians about Trayvon arose. And that is that he believed him to be another black kid who'd been seen in the area thought to be committing B&Es.

So, with the logic anybody who isn't retarded will have, you'll immediately see that he mistook Trayvon for another black kid that night as he set off on what would end in him killing Trayvon.

If Trayvon were white, he wouldn't have been mistaken for that other black kid, now would he? This is all documented w\ Zimmerman's own words available to anybody who cares to look them up.

The hate crime thing would be the most extreme end you could go on the pro Trayvon side so as to suggest Zimmerman was out looking for a black kid to shoot to death. Nobody is making that case.

And while this alone doesn't amount to much, none of it does. But when you piece it all together, you have what the prosecution could well have used to convict Zimmerman something like manslaughter or a lesser murder charge.

amen, only stories that are divisive make the news. I'm just gonna start lumping CNN in with the Versus network because it's always fucking:

white vs black

red vs blue

Men vs women

rich vs poor

military vs NOTHING WE WORSHIP THIS SHIT

And they always come when there's another pressing issue that needs distraction.

In the case of "trayvon vs zimmerman" it happened when Snowden's story broke alongside Manning's trial.

What a coincidence!

To be fair, when the incident happened they didn't have Zimmerman's birth records in front of them.

Zimmerman is a prominently jewish name. Most jews are either caucasian or dare I say arab.

If you showed his picture to 100 people, 99 would say he looked white.

I doubt that. He clearly looks hispanic. I'm sure some would say that he looked white, but definitely not 99%.

I've lived predominantly in Florida, and California; he looked hispanic to me, but the name did confuse me at first.

except for he looks like he's white, and has a name w\ white origins.

actually its german name

Jewish, German... Caucasian. That's the point.

True

Are we talking about the video of the big black guy who died when a white cop put him in a choke hold?

Seriously, if they can't make a fucking fuss over it and make money off of the death and suffering of others, the general population doesn't get to hear about it.

What pieces of shit.

Exactly. A case arose in CA a while back about a Bart officer killing a guy.. media made it out, and the victim's family, to be a hate/race crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

Zimmerman was hispanic

White teenagers shoot each other all the time, and the media hypes them up constantly.

Right, but why do they avoid the topic of black on black crime? It's the elephant in the room that nobody talks about. The media assumes the position: "well... that's just how it is in the ghetto" -- they shrug and ignore it. They act like nothing can be done to prevent it (other than passing more laws and taking away guns from law-abiding citizens).

Right, but why do they avoid the topic of black on black crime?

A common distraction canard that invariably leads to "blacks are predisposed to be violent criminals and Obama is covering it up, let's kill all the niggers".

Let me know when I'm getting close.

People keep insisting that the Trayvon Martin case was over publicized because of the race of the two people involved but I'm pretty sure the real issue that drew the nation's attention was the relative age. Regardless of whether someone believes it was or wasn't self defense, the basic fact is an adult shot an unarmed minor. That is what I found outrageous, not a black guy getting shot by a "white Hispanic", or whatever they were calling Zimmerman.

In my opinion, there was no conspiracy to start a race war at play.

an unarmed minor

.... who was pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground and trying to kill him.

Trayvon wasn't some defenseless little child.

If you're old enough to try to murder someone, then you're old enough to understand consequences.

So if Trayvon was pounding his head into the ground repeatedly and breaking his nose and all that other stuff...why was there no blood anywhere on his hoodie?

[deleted]

Made up hypothetical question? What does that mean?

I did investigate...I followed that case like crazy when it was going on and I watched the trial and everything. It was a while back but as far as I can remember, there was no blood anywhere on the arms of his hoodie. And if he was doing as much damage as Zimmerman claimed...why was there no blood? There as no DNA. There wasn't even any DNA under Trayvon's fingernails.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/09/1214336/-DNA-Report-does-NOT-support-Zimmerman-s-claim-that-Trayvon-Martin-caused-his-injuries

[deleted]

...because you were the one that was so sure it happened like that. I don't even understand why you're replying like this. Whatever, I don't care, bye.

So, please explain to me why Trayvon's actions weren't considered "standing his ground". He was stalked through the streets and confronted by an armed man. Was he not within his rights to neutralize Zimmerman if he thought he was threatened? Was he supposed to flee?

The law only allows you to meet force with force. Unless in fear of death or serious harm. There is no reason to suspect death or harm because some guy is walking around his own neighborhood which you don't live in.

Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Not the other way around. You seem confused.

No he wasn not within his rights to kill ZImmerman.

Once he had lost Zimmerman he should have gone home yes. Instead he turned around and hunted what he described as a "Creepy-ass Cracker".

There is no reason to suspect death or harm because some guy is walking around his own neighborhood which you don't live in.

Uh, people are free to move around and walk in neighborhoods where they don't live. Other people, however, are not free to play police and follow someone around like they are a cop.

Uh, people are free to move around and walk in neighborhoods where they don't live.

So then you agree, Zimmerman did nothing wrong? Surely, if people can walk in neighborhoods they don't live, Zimmerman was more than free to walk in the neighborhood he did in fact, live in.

Other people, however, are not free to play police and follow someone around like they are a cop.

Please show me a law outlining this. I think you'll find there isn't one.

Think of the chaos this law would cause. I could kill 10 soccer moms in my neighborhood on an average dog walk if this were the case. If they follow me I'm allowed to murder them like Trayvon tried to do to Zimmerman right?

In fact, a burglar was caught by police in the exact same neighborhood a few weeks prior to the trayvon incident because some painters/contractors followed someone around relaying the suspect's location to police.

I notice police did not arrest the painters as well. That would have been crazy.

On top of that, the dispatcher told him to follow Trayvon.(The dispatcher testified to this at the trial.) None of that really matters though because Trayvon attacked Zimmerman as he was returning to his truck long after Zimmerman had completely lost sight of Trayvon.

Other people, however, are not free to play police and follow someone around like they are a cop.

You seem to have misread the facts of the case. Nobody was "playing police". Zimmerman was not wearing a police uniform. He did not identify himself as being a police officer. He didn't have an exposed weapon (it was concealed).

They were both in a public place. When you're in public, you have no legal expectation to privacy. If we're both in public, I can follow you around and stare at you all I want. I can even take pictures of you. If you don't like it you can leave the public place or you can stare back and take pictures of me. But, you can't physically hit a person because of some perceived injustice. Once you cross that line and physically touch someone you've committed a crime.

Trayvon should have gone to his house, gone inside, and locked the door. If he was afraid of Zimmerman, then he should have called the police. But, Zimmerman gave no indication that he was trying to physically stop Martin. He never touched him. He wasn't blocking his path. All he was doing was observing him from a distance.

If someone approached me in the dark with a gun drawn I would probably try fight too.

First: He DIDN'T have the gun drawn. You are misrepresenting the facts of the case.

Second: preemptively attacking someone who is holding a gun in a fight is a very stupid move (unless you're some martial arts or hand-to-hand combat expert with training and experience).

How do you know? would that not explain why Trayvon attacked him?

Assuming that people think logically in these situations is a problem.

None of Trayvon's DNA was on the gun. He wasn't aware of it when he decided to commit assault and battery.

So if someone was following you in the dark...you wouldn't try and defend yourself if you felt threatened?

I would phone the police and leave the area.

I would not chat on the phone with a friend, lurk outside in the dark for a minute while my pursuer had stopped pursuit, then ambush the "creepy ass cracker" as he headed back to his truck. I wouldn't do that at all.

And that's you. I'm sure every single person in the world would not react the same way. My brother is 26 and the nicest person in the world but he knows how to stand up for himself, and I guarantee if someone was following him, he would try to run (which Trayvon did). Trayvon's girlfriend said on the phone that he noticed Zimmerman following him so he put his hoodie on, and then said he would walk fast but not run. She said he got scared and eventually started to run and then stopped once he thought he had escaped, but then Zimmerman showed up again. So Trayvon tried to get away from a creep and then realized the creep was in fact following him, for sure. So call the cops and wait 10 minutes for them to get there when you're running around in backyards and might not even be able to describe where you are? No. My brother would have asked him what was going on also. This crazy man that you know nothing about is following you...so run until you get to your house and he knows exactly where you live? Oh ok, sounds safe. Any guy I know who thinks they can handle themselves (and then was actually unable to escape him) would have done the same thing, asked him what was going on. It's much better than leading him back to your house.

Any guy I know ... would have done the same thing, asked him what was going on

Punching someone in the face, pinning them to the ground, and bashing their skull into concrete is assault and battery. Assault and battery is significantly different from "ask[ing] him what was going on".

and that leads back to my question - how do you know that even happened? According to the evidence, there's none of Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon's hands or hoodie, so they said Trayvon isn't even responsible for his injuries. I don't believe that even happened the way Zimmerman said it did. The evidence doesn't support his story.

An eyewitness saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating him in the head.

There's no question that Trayvon committed assault and battery.

Furthermore the timeline showed Trayvon had ample opportunity to leave if he wanted to. He instead chose to double back and attack George Zimmerman. Trayvon was a violent thug who committed assault and battery simply because he thought he would get away with it.

The friend on the phone with Trayvon didn't even phone police when the line went dead. She knew Trayvon was committing assault and battery and would be arrested if caught.

lolol ok whatever you say. bye.

You do realize Trayvon ran away before Zimmerman followed him in his truck, got out and approached right? Dont pretend Trayvon was out for a kill or something.

Said perfectly dude. People just think black males are so prone to violence they just attack random people and try to kill them.

If it were a woman bashing in Zimmerman's head before being shot, it would be presumed she was afraid she was gonna be raped. Especially if she ran and called a male figure. But black males are big and athletic, he played football! (As if that makes him tough)

Yup. They keep showing pictures of him flicking off the camera and being like "This is the thug, this is 'Obama's son," and shit. Umm...I have pictures of my little 8 year old cousin flicking off the camera because he thinks he's cool. Later he got his ass beat by his mom for doing that lol...but that doesn't mean he's a thug. Who hasn't flicked off a camera?

Right, and meanwhile Zimmerman has been convicted of domestic abuse, attacking and undercover officer, accused of molestation for years by his niece, and after the shooting hes pulled guns on several people multiple times.

The racism is real.

Yup. Funny, after I was going at it with this guy, I signed into facebook the next morning and saw this: http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/-gun-shop-owner-says-zimmerman-never-hired-provide-security-despite-his-claims-cops-18106.shtml?wap=0&

but yea...ok. Whatever the other guy said MUST be true.

He actually RAN away when he kept being STALKED then called someone he was close to for help.

George Zimmerman was standing still finishing his phone call with dispatchers for a minute after he lost sight of Trayvon.

Trayvon doubled back to attack George Zimmerman.

He never called anyone for help.

You seem to have strong feelings about the case for someone who is so misinformed.

George Zimmerman was standing still finishing his phone call with dispatchers for a minute after he lost sight of Trayvon.

Than he went after him

Trayvon doubled back to attack George Zimmerman.

I've seen this perpetuated several times but the evidence all seems to be unreliable.

He never called anyone for help.

He called that girl, they talked for a while, he decided to run while on the phone with her. The 16y/o Trayvon told her he was being followed by a creepy guy(cracker)

You seem to have strong feelings about the case for someone who is so misinformed.

You seem to have your head up your ass.

Than he went after him

No, then he headed back to his truck but was ambushed by Trayvon.

I've seen this perpetuated several times but the evidence all seems to be unreliable.

The evidence is indisputable. The friend on the phone with Trayvon testified Trayvon told her he arrived at the back of the house he was staying at. The timeline shows Trayvon had four minutes to travel one block home if that was his destination. He could have been miles away if he wanted to be.

The only possible reason his body was near the T intersection was because he doubled back there to attack George Zimmerman.

He called that girl

And? He called her to chat with her. He didn't call her for help.

There's no indication he thought he needed help. He didn't call for help. The friend he was on the phone with didn't think Trayvon needed any help. Even after the line went dead, she didn't think Trayvon needed help.

Jeantel knew Trayvon was the attacker. She thought it was Trayvon's victim (George Zimmerman) who was in danger, while Trayvon would be fine.

No, then he headed back to his truck but was ambushed by Trayvon.

Ambushed? Really? Are you suggesting Trayvon ran away in order to lure Zimmerman into a trap? You are delusional if you believe that, Trayvon may have beat the shit out of Z but don't make it sound like he's some savage out to kill somebody, he was scared, so he ran away. He was being followed at night by a man in a truck imagine this was your sister and not just some black kid.

The evidence is indisputable. The friend on the phone with Trayvon testified Trayvon told her he arrived at the back of the house he was staying at. The timeline shows Trayvon had four minutes to travel one block home if that was his destination. He could have been miles away if he wanted to be.

She said specifically that Trayvon told her he was by his house not at his house. They are in different cities so the distance is ambiguous. And the four minutes could have been spent holding out after he lost Z. Why would he run home in the rain with his tea and skittles, turn around once he got there, bringing his snacks and come back to man he was seemingly afraid of enough to run from even though he didn't commit a crime. Explain a scenario where that makes since.

The only possible reason his body was near the T intersection was because he doubled back there to attack George Zimmerman.

Based on the testimony of the killer of course. How do we know Z wasn't extremely confrontational? Are we to assume Zimmerman just walked up to Trayvon and said "hi buddy"?

And? He called her to chat with her. He didn't call her for help.

Yes he did... what are you talking about you seem biased now.

There's no indication he thought he needed help. He didn't call for help. The friend he was on the phone with didn't think Trayvon needed any help. Even after the line went dead, she didn't think Trayvon needed help.

She said she thought he should run, he said he would just walk fast but eventually he began running.

Why do you think Trayvon ran?

Jeantel knew Trayvon was the attacker. She thought it was Trayvon's victim (George Zimmerman) who was in danger, while Trayvon would be fine.

Yea maybe that is true, I only take issue with this racist line of thinking that this 17 y/o wasn't running for his life, no he was running so he could find a way to ambush Zimmerman and kill him. This seems to be what you think and its fucking racist . If this were a 17 y/o white girl and she ended up kicking his ass people would understand the threat she must have felt. But hes a black guy he must be a thug and a violent one. The racist line of thinking was "But black males are strong and athletic."(he played football and liked fighting! As if that makes him tough or different from any other male his age)

I think T was scared, ran, than crossed paths with the overzealous Z and Trayvon, knowing he had been followed by this man attacks him after a short confrontation. He should not have did this obviously but in my mind he's fighting a stalker whom may or may not have flashed his gun considering the incidents that have happened since (pulling his gun on multiple people for no reason and getting arrested) . I think his head wounds are massively exxagerated, he told the court he had his head banged over 40 times and that's clearly a lie. Trayvon probably knocked him out mounted him when Z pulled a gun and tray starts banging his head and is shot. But I find it strange how Zimmerman didn't have blood on his shirt considering he blew a hole through someones heart laying on top of him...

Zimmerman is a thug he attacked an undercover police officer, he pulled guns on people multiple times for NO reason, his niece told CNN he molested her for years. Zimmerman should have never been following kids around assuming they are doing something wrong. Trayvon would be alive today if he hadn't.

The timeline of Zimmerman on the phone with dispatchers establishes unequivocally that Trayvon had 4 minutes to travel one block home after Zimmerman lost sight of him. This was brought up at trial and the prosecution had no rebuttal.

We know Trayvon is a violent dangerous criminal thug because he committed assault and battery on George Zimmerman. This isn't speculation. There was a trial.

I'm not judging him on his race I'm judging him on his actions.

If a White female 17 year old got angry that a neighborhood watchman had phoned police on her, punched him in the face knocking him down, straddled him to pin him to the ground, then savagely beat him and slammed his head into concrete for over a minute while he cried for help, then refused to stop when eyewitness John Good came out and said "stop", then got shot in the chest, nobody would care. Everyone would say she got what was coming to her. There would be no trial.

You want to make sure no more Trayvons get shot? Teach them not to commit assault and battery. You aren't entitled to crack a guy's skull open just because he hurt your feelings by calling police. Not even if you're black.

The timeline of Zimmerman on the phone with dispatchers establishes unequivocally that Trayvon had 4 minutes to travel one block home after Zimmerman lost sight of him. This was brought up at trial and the prosecution had no rebuttal.

The prosecution in the case was ridiculously bad. The worse ive ever heard of. If you consider the possibility that he was afraid it makes sense. Why would he lead this man who's been following him do o his home instead turning a corner and bidding for a minute. He didn't go home because he was being stalked. I think this makes more sense than saying he didn't gp home because he wanted to lure Zimmerman into a trap. That's just silly dude no one runs away from a car at night going they will chase you if he wanted to kick Zimmerman's ass why would run? ANSWER THAT!

We know Trayvon is a violent dangerous criminal thug because he committed assault and battery on George Zimmerman. This isn't speculation. There was a trial.

Yes Trayvons violent and so I Zimmerman, thats why this all happened two people on the edged confronted each other. Zimmerman has a larger record and he's aimed guns at about 4 people in the last years he's a power hungry guy who needs anger management.

If a White female 17 year old got angry that a neighborhood watchman had phoned police on her, punched him in the face knocking him down, straddled him to pin him to the ground, then savagely beat him and slammed his head into concrete for over a minute while he cried for help,

Gotta stop you there his injuries were soo exaggerated by Zimmerman himself. he lost but it was in no way a Savage beating lmao I can't believe people sometimes. If he had slammed his head on the curb 40+ times like he claimed Zimmerman would be dead. He had a cut on his head and a bloody nose.

…then refused to stop when eyewitness John Good came out and said "stop", then got shot in the chest, nobody would care. Everyone would say she got what was coming to her. There would be no trial.

Agree to disagree

You want to make sure no more Trayvons get shot? Teach them not to commit assault and battery. You aren't entitled to crack a guy's skull open just because he hurt your feelings by calling police. Not even if you're black

Trayvon overreacted but my argument is it was understandable. But he did not know Zimmerman was calling the Police they weren't staring at each other Zimmerman was watching him. I would be happy of they gave him a few years at least.

I have another question, considering Zimmerman's history before and after this event would you call him prone to violence or outbursts?

The prosecution was fine.

It's difficult to argue a case when all the evidence overwhelmingly supports the defendant. It was a clear cut case of self defense. He shouldn't even have been charged.

A conviction of George Zimmerman would have completely obliterated the concept of self defense.

This. It's the promotion of racism to keep the poor white people from joining up with the poor black people against the plutocracy. It's why they killed MLK Jr. He was about to unite the poor.

Why is that a part of the agenda ?

Divide and conquer.

Two white cops jumped on a black guy and choke hold him. He died of cardiac arrest. That's a black and white incident.

When it happens everyday, is it really even news anymore?

This video immediately came to mind. It changed the way I saw the case entirely. I really believe he is innocent.

http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

I'm sympathetic to your point and this host's conclusion, but I don't admire the way he went about getting there.

Lambasts the population and the media for speculation regarding Zimmerman but uses it at will when it helps illustrate a point against the "facade" of Martin. The skittles and watermelon drink bit was interesting...plausible, but otherwise completely irrelevant. "Mixed Martial Arts" moves he performed on Zimmerman, "tough talk" on the internet. He works hard to craft a narrative while criticizing others that have done the same.

He complains about the tactics the media used against Zimmerman while using many of those same tactics against Martin. Hyperbolic , overblown, and at certain parts, ridiculous. Again, I don't begrudge his defense of Zimmerman, but promoting a 17 year old as being mature, tough, and even vicious by characterizing aspects of his life and personality doesn't lessen any injustices this guy may feel were carried out against Zimmerman.

the victim, eric garner, is also black. the cop, daniel pantaleo, is white. it was news but it didn't get as much screen time as martin.

you're right about the chicago stuff though. the thing is, local news always predicates it with 'gang violence', which really doesn't explain anything. they never go deeper: why are kids joining gangs? why are they mostly black kids who gets involved in these things?

you can put as many cops in the southside as you want, but unless poverty and income inequality are addressed, it's not going to do change much.

(sorry for going off tangent there).

I realize I'm late to the party , Chicago resident here, I think the shootings here have, sadly, become part of life. Last weekend for example, over 40 people were shot, ONE WEEKEND. I dig the idea of black on white or white on black violence being used to manipulate the public in a divisive manner, but random shootings in the city are so common the nation media doesn't bother spending time on it, it's almost lost the sensationalism to it. Just my two cents though.

Rather than address the root causes like:

• gangs
• unemployment
• inequality
• drugs
• family problems
• education

They pass more laws which do nothing to fix the problem(s).

Exactly. The city needs money, plain and simple, how we do this I have no idea. School closings and in many cases lack of a structured environment makes so many kids an easy target for gang recruitment which continues this cycle of violence.

I think that the community needs to be involved in solving their own problems too. Bill Cosby has pointed this out. So has Chris Rock (...in a round about sort of way). There are YouTube videos of people taking a stand and saying "no more" in their own family.

People need to stand up for decency and values and say "enough is enough". It shouldn't be tolerated. It shouldn't be accepted. It's a complex set of problems and throwing money at it will only go so far. The best thing we can spend money on is education. The rest requires an active and engaged community who stands up for what they believe in.

If it were me, I'd change the laws regarding small businesses and I'd teach entrepreneurship in schools. Make it easy for anyone to start their own business and then give them training and inspiration for how to do it. If you removed the barriers to entry, you'd be surprised at the level of creativity that you'd see. You have to be pretty entrepreneurial to sell drugs. The kids are smart and capable. But, they don't have the tools, resources, or training to run legitimate businesses. Creating jobs through entrepreneurship is probably one of the best things you could do to reduce crime and poverty.

Totally agree with you on education, it's a great starting point. Well said.

It's economics, not education. Access to opportunity. Schools can be underfunded and closed down, as they often are in inner cities.

White cops strangling a large black man to death sounds like it would help advance "their agenda" quite a bit.

I mean, they reenacted "Do the Right Thing" for fuck sake.

Seems to me its more our fault, for relying on an obviously incompetent news organization to be outraged for us.

It doesn't help to advance their agenda of dividing people along racial lines.

Their agenda is selling ads. If anything they tend to bury stories that could provoke racial tension. The national media was almost silent on this story.

The Trayvon Martin story sold ads.

interesting how you prove the point of media bias. How does the martin story sell ads to a white majority nation over the case you link?

It was controversial. They don't publish stories that divide people because they want to divide people. They publish stories that divide people because stories that divide people sell ads.

Or people (you know, the audience for news networks) really like to make a huge deal out of racial crimes, and so the networks air the crap out of these things knowing they'll get great ratings.

It's still shitty, but it can be explained quite easily without any sort of divisive news conspiracy.

No one is trying to divide the country along racial lines to make money. They're just doing whatever they can to make money without any regard for the consequenses, and we're dividing ourselves because we fucking love to get angry about shit.

do you seriously expect the news to report on something that happens on a routine basis? isn't that the antithesis of what the news is all about?

chicago? ay relax man. chicago's safe as houses. lets talk detroit and east STL first

Listen to NPR and you'll hear about it.

Chicago had a white guy shooting that made front page news just yesterday. Of course, the news completely avoided Chicago's forty or fifty shootings the previous weekend in less affluent neighborhoods.

It doesn't help to advance their agenda of dividing people along racial lines.

Exactly! But that shit did not work in my town. i think most people love drama but know better than to take it into the real world. 99 problems and race aint one.

In Jacksonville, Florida it's the opposite of that. Every time a black person gets shot the entire black community throws parades, multiple vigils, many many many rallies, and have ridiculous camera time on the news "demanding justice".

But whenever a white person gets killed, they might just have a little 30 second clip on the news saying something like "Mark was killed on 8th Street yesterday morning. Police are looking into the situation." and that's it.

If Zimmerman was black it wouldnt be news, and nothing would happen.

If Zimmerman was a cop, it would be news online, and nothing would happen.

I don't know that news suppose to have colour to be on air.

Wut.... Something that happens every day isn't that newsworthy.

I live in the NY metro area. It's pretty much been mentioned at least once daily during the morning news shows. The cop who killed the black man happened to be white as well.

We're not seeing a comparable amount of national news coverage because there are two fresh conflicts occurring in the middle east and eastern Europe taking up all the time allocated for real news in between reports of people blaming Obama for all life's troubles or which celebrity is fuckin' which celebrity this week.

Off topic but Chicago is pretty ordinary with regards to murders. In fact it's much improved over 20 years ago. I don't know why it's gotten this reputation lately.

I don't think there is an agenda beyond profit. Racial discord sales papers and commercials.

You mean white on black crime?

The Martin-Zimmerman incident was an opportunity for the state media channels to perpetuate a narrative that attacked self defense rights (a law that didn't even apply to the facts of the case mind you, but the truth doesn't matter, stand you ground law is the ungood citizen, relinquish your rights unto the state) and perpetuate a divide and conquer narrative among the citizenry (along racial lines, black vs. white apparently, and regarding zimmermans race - see the disregard for facts mentioned above).

The master class never lets a good event go to waste. Gotta perpetuate those narratives and spread confusion and doublethink among the slave class at every turn...

a law that didn't even apply to the facts of the case mind you

Holy shit it is so relieving to actually see someone understand the law. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've gotten into heated arguments with people when I had to point out that "stand your ground" has NOTHING to do with the case, and that when looked at from a legal perspective (i.e., actually reading and understanding the legalese) there was no possible way that Zimmerman could have been convicted of murder.

And don't even get me started on people spouting off garbage like "Zimmerman killed someone, that automatically means he's a murderer!!!1"

It's understandable that some people thought stand your ground law did apply to the facts of the case - after all, all the state media outlets were unified in perpetuating this deliberate disinformation narrative. Hell, I'm glad that's what they did - it made the true intent of attacking the citizenry's self defense rights and race baiting divide and conquer tactics painfully obvious to anyone remotely informed and paying attention.

And to the low-information voters who were so easily fooled, I will say this: these are the same people who don't care to understand the facts of the case, they just want a public lynching, they probably lack the legal understanding that a distinction even exists between homicide, manslaughter and murder - and these people are the exact targets (and most susceptible to) the psychological operations, perception management, and information warfare being waged against all of us.

it's misleading to just blame the media for bringing up "stand your ground".

The development is in stark contrast to the statements repeatedly made by Bill Lee, the Sanford police chief who has since stepped aside and was lambasted for his handling of the case. Lee publicly insisted that there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, leading many critics to say he came across more like a defense attorney for Zimmerman.

"Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self-defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony," Lee wrote in a memo posted on the city's website. "By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based of the facts and circumstances they had at the time."

He cited the statute number for Florida's "stand your ground" law, which provides immunity to people who kill someone in self-defense.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/sanford-cops-sought-warrant-to-arrest-george-zimmerman-in-trayvon-martin/1222259

the police chief brought it up, too

Sure, you can provide us all with some well sourced quotes and stories linking the SYG law being called out in regards to this incident. Ok. So are you going to focus and rely on a comment made by a police chief?

Or are you going to get back on track to the actual facts of the case and relevant law?

Whether you realize it or not (hell, for all I know you could be forum sliding deliberately or attempting to distract from the actual facts of the case) you are perpetuating their disinformation narratives.

Final Jury Instructions: http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.

If you find Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the Second Degree or was Manslaughter, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing.

...

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

etc.

If that's not Stand Your Ground language, then please show me an example of what is.

What you linked literally has no mention of stand your ground law - so thank you for reinforcing and proving my point, I guess?

What you linked is simply an effective defense using basic self defense law.

SYG concerns "duty to retreat" (more specifically, a lack thereof, which is a good thing for citizens who might be forced to lawfully defend their lives against unlawful violence).

Read up and educate yourself on the alternative to SYG law (duty to retreat law), then get back to me. If you are serious about continuing this important conversation, I humbly ask you to do this and we can resume conversation.

Also from the Final Jury Instructions:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Man, you are pushing this agenda hard. It really makes me question your motives here...

"If"

That is what your quote begins with. This is a supposed scenario. That did. Not. Happen.

If this supposed scenario that you referenced above did, in fact happen, then the SYG law would be relevant to the case.

But because it did not (as amply evidenced by your previous supports), I will repeat: SYG had no relevance to the Zimmerman case.

Do you understand this now?

Even if you don't, it matters not. Anyone reading this comment thread will see the truth. Thank you for helping us all elucidate the truth here a little bit further. Humanity and legal understanding is better served by this important discussion about the deliberate spread of misleading information.

That did. Not. Happen.

What?

Which part of the following scenario did not happen?

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

You're attempting to draw out my defenses by forcing me to acknowledge the merit of your merit less claims and it is hilarious.

Or, I posted a "supposed scenario" that was in the Final Jury Instructions, and you claimed that that scenario did not happen, without explaining which part of that scenario did not happen. I asked you to explain which part of that scenario did not happen, and you decided to avoid the question, which is telling.

Let's bring it back on topic now.

Are you aware that SYG defense was not invoked by Zimmerman as a defense?

Do you understand this? It's a simple yes or no question.

It's not a simple yes or no question, because they wouldn't invoke it as a defense.

Stand Your Ground is baked into Florida's self-defense law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

If there is a self-defense claim made, it's invoking the linked law, which includes Stand Your Ground language.

If there is another relevant law, please link to it.

The jury instructions also mention dwellings or houses. But the incident happened outdoors.

Is the dwelling and houses clause also relevant to George Zimmerman's case? Why or why not?

When you understand why the dwelling and houses clause--despite being part of jury instructions--had nothing to do with the case, you will understand why Stand Your Ground also had nothing to do with the case.

Zimmerman did not have the chance to retreat, therefore he could not have had a duty to retreat. Martin had Zimmerman trapped underneath of him.

Even in states where they do not have stand your ground laws, you can defend yourself without moving if your attacker is preventing you from retreating. The stand your ground laws were, in effect, irrelevant.

The statute number for the SYG law is the same as the regular self-defense law. So that could mean anything in there. Let's pick out a random one we don't like!

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2cblq5/trayvon_martin_shot_by_george_zimmerman_and_its/cje42wn

Final Jury Instructions found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

Point being?

Even if the SYG law didn't exist and he had a duty to retreat. It's not like he could have reasonably retreated with Trayvon on top of him slamming his head into concrete.

Face it, the SYG law had nothing to do with this case.

Face it, the SYG law had nothing to do with this case.

Final Jury Instructions say otherwise.

I can't believe how committed you are to spreading information that simply is not true.

Even your supports refute your own incorrect claims.

Do you seriously still not understand SYG law? Or are you an information warfare worker paid to perpetuate this wrong information?

Even your supports refute your own incorrect claims.

You said:

Face it, the SYG law had nothing to do with this case.

The Final Jury Instructions said:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

If the Final Jury Instructions specifically used the words "he had no duty to retreat" and "had the right to stand his ground", how can you claim that SYG had nothing to do with this case?

...

Or are you an information warfare worker paid to perpetuate this wrong information?

lol

If the Final Jury Instructions specifically used the words "he had no duty to retreat" and "had the right to stand his ground", how can you claim that SYG had nothing to do with this case?

I'm glad you brought us to this point, because the answer in incredibly simple here. It is this:

Stand your ground law was not invoked as a defense by zimmerman.

That is the one simple fact why SYG has nothing to do with this case.

You are quoting jury instructions, not the substance of zimmermans actual defense.

And this isn't my claim, this is simply fact and the truth. If you still can't comprehend this, then I truly am sorry. You have been entirely misled and misinformed. But I don't fault for this however, as discussed above, the American state media apparatus was unified in perpetuating this disinformation and "outrage" narrative. To stir up public outrage against an entirely unrelated law that serves the best interests of you, me, and all of our fellow citizens. Self defense is a human right, and immensely worthy of defending.

Now do you understand? Or do I have to keep walking you through this?

As far as I can tell, Stand Your Ground is baked into Florida's self-defense law; it's not two different laws.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

If I am mistaken, please show me the other Florida law concerning using deadly force in self-defense that applies to the defense's case, since you claim to be so well-versed in the relevant law(s).

To stir up public outrage against an entirely unrelated law that serves the best interests of you, me, and all of our fellow citizens.

I'm not debating the merits of SYG; I'm just stating that SYG was a part of the Zimmerman case, contrary to your original claim.

Florida's self defense law says many things, not all of which are relevant to George Zimmerman's case.

Common sense and Law experts say otherwise.

Ha. So you just choose to ignore the language used in the Final Jury Instructions, a crucial piece of any case, because it disproves your argument. Suit yourself.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm critically thinking and destroying your point. If you think the jury would have come up with a different decision had the law not been passed nearly unanimously years ago, prove it.

If you think the jury would have come up with a different decision had the law not been passed nearly unanimously years ago, prove it.

That's not what we're debating, so it's irrelevant. Stand Your Ground is part of Florida's self-defense law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Since this case involved a claim of self-defense, SYG is therefore involved in this case, contrary to your original claim.

Ah so your bullshit argument is based entirely on semantics and not facts. Got it.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

/u/changetip $1

I found the Bitcoin tip for 1.692 mBTC ($1.00). It is waiting for /u/tboner6969 to collect it.

ChangeTip info | ChangeTip video | /r/Bitcoin

I just simply throw Ralph Wiggum quotes at anyone who wants to discuss the situation, being rational is pointless.

Can you please explain what you mean?

I am largely ignorant of the Trayvon-Zimmerman case, except from what I've heard off the internet. Currently, I feel like Zimmerman should have been found guilty of murder, because he simply suspicious of a black kid following him. The only time- I believe -you can kill someone, is when your life (or another's) is clearly being threatened. Logically, that is the only time you should ever kill someone.

Just finished typing my post and it's way too long.

tl;dr - Zimmerman was in fear of imminent death or serious injury when he shot and killed Martin. Because of this, his use of deadly force was legally justified. "Murder" is basically legally defined as the unlawful killing of a person. Since Zimmerman's killing of Martin was not unlawful, he is not guilty of murder, as decided by the courts.

Sure, I'll explain. Hope you're ready for some reading!

Let's get some background information. Zimmerman had lived in that community for several years. He would call the police (non-emergency number) often to report things, mainly simple things like to report potholes or noise disturbances, but in the year prior to the shooting, he started calling in to report suspicious people. This makes sense because in the year prior to the shooting there had been nearly two-dozen reported cases of burglary and theft, an increase over years prior. There were also dozens of unreported cases of attempted break-ins. In each of his calls to the police, he never once brought up the person's race unless prompted by the dispatcher.

In the weeks prior to the incident, Zimmerman spotted a suspicious person whom he believed was scoping out houses to burgle (he was walking up to empty houses and looking into the windows). By the time the police had arrived, the person had already run away. A few days later, residents saw a group of black teens acting suspiciously in front of a house, the same house which was later that day found to have been burglarized with a laptop and jewelry taken. The very next day, the police stopped and searched the backpack of a black teen and found the laptop which was stolen from the house mentioned above. And guess what? That teen with the stolen laptop was the same person that Zimmerman called the police on earlier that week (but had fled).

So we've established that Zimmerman's neighborhood recently had seen a significant increase in burglaries, thefts, and attempted break-ins. We've also established that very recently, Zimmerman successfully spotted a suspicious (black) teen, who fled before police arrived, who was found with stolen property a few days later.

Zimmerman legally had been carrying his pistol for several years. He originally purchased and got licensed, at least partially in response to a few incidences where a loose pit bull in the neighborhood had acted aggressively towards him and his wife, in which an animal control officer suggested that he get a gun, as this would be more effective than pepper spray or other means of defense.

On the night of the shooting, Zimmerman noticed a suspicious person (Martin) walking in the neighborhood. He called the non-emergency police number again. Zimmerman basically said that the suspicious person was just walking/looking at houses in the rain and that he didn't look right. As usual, he didn't mention Martin's race until the dispatcher asked him. Martin noticed Zimmerman and approached him with his hand in his waistband, and then started running away. Zimmerman mentioned to dispatch that "they always get away" - probably in reference to at least the incident a few weeks prior.

So, dispatch asks him where Martin is running, where he is headed to. Zimmerman is following Martin, trying to see where he is running to. Dispatch says "we don't need you to do that (follow him)". After coordinating with dispatch regarding where the police will meet him, the call ends.

Now here's where it gets fuzzy (the above are from police records and the recording of the dispatch call).

Several people call 911 after hearing shouting/fighting, followed by a man screaming for help multiple times, followed by a gunshot. Witnesses saw two figures fighting on the ground, with one person on his back being pummeled by the man on top. Multiple witnesses reported that a man wearing red was on the bottom. Zimmerman was wearing a red jacket, Martin was wearing a black sweatshirt.

When police arrive, Martin was dead, face down on the grass. Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head, and also had swelling/damage to his face and nose. Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass. In initial statements to the police, he mentioned that he was screaming for help but no one came.

So, putting the witness reports and the evidence together, it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman ended up on his back in the grass with Martin on top of him, getting beaten while screaming for help.

Now, some people blindly claim that Zimmerman attacked Martin initially, which they believe disqualifies Zimmerman from being able to use self-defense as a reason for the shooting. They are wrong.

2012 776.041 Use of force by aggressor:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Some people claim that Zimmerman is racist against blacks. Zimmerman went to prom/dances with a black girl, started a business with a black friend, and protested at a demonstration for the civil rights of a black homeless man.

Really, it comes down to this question. At the moment that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, is it reasonable to believe that he was in fear of death or serious bodily harm? Yes? Well, that is reasonable doubt so he is not guilty. No? Then present tangible evidence to the contrary (no one has been able to).

Not with $500,000+ donated for a legal defense mostly from people pre judging the situation and donating for zimmerman having killed a black kid.

This separates the cast from nearly all other criminal cases w\ similar circumstances in which people more often than not plead out to lesser offenses to avoid jail time.

That's how our justice system works... you either have money or you don't.

But stand your ground did have something to do with the case.... it was the reason Zimmerman could legally kill in self defense even though he wasn't on his own property.

Not really. Even if we say that Zimmerman acted as the aggressor (i.e., did not retreat), he still was justified in using deadly force once Martin got on top of him and started beating him while and after Zimmerman was screaming for help repeatedly.

2012 776.041 Use of force by aggressor:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Zimmerman isn't even white, he's hispanic.

As the media stated, he is a white Hispanic. Gotta throw in the race card

Exactly, thats why i acknowledged that in my comment above. And I didn't matter that Zimmerman wasn't "white". To those pushing the agendas and the narratives - he was "white enough."

And then by following the trail back to those pushing the prosecution of Zimmerman - tell me again who the real racists are?

i joke that hispanics/latinos are schrodinger whites -- the white-ness matters when they do something wrong, the 'brown-ness' matter when somebody does something wrong to them.

Absolutely, and I am familiar with this concept.

race and ethnicity are two different things

And you see how fast white people adopted him. Didn't even hesitate like they did with Elian Gonzales.

TYL it's easy to become white in America. Just kill a black child.

There were plenty of people 'adopting' Trayvon Martin, placing a bounty on Zimmerman etc.. Let's not put all the blame on whitey here, although race was a big part of the discussion.

It might not have played out nationwide as much as Zimmerman, but it's all we've been hearing about in NYC.

"WHY ISN'T THIS LOCAL NEWS STORY GETTING NATIONAL ATTENTION?"

Same as it ever was.

I think the OP is asking "Why did X local news story get national attention, while many others don't". It's rhetorical, we all know the answer: Money. The 24 hours news channels know that race drama sells commercials. So they seek it out and drag it out.

there are a lot of factors.

• the fact that the trayvon case preceded it. the choking incident may be similar, but we've already gone through something like it before. the incident loses its news appeal that way (and our ability to emphatize).
• martin was a minor. the other guy wasn't. (i might be wrong on TM being a minor though)
• a gun was not used. that adds another layer for people to argue (gun control. add to that the whole 'stand your ground' debate.
• the pd is involved. police brutality isn't exactly breaking news.

and i think the post you responded to was paying homage to Once In A Lifetime

I think some stories (particularly crime stories) are sticky because they are easy to explain in a minute but have some kind of "hook" to them that makes them puzzling or mysterious. It's like they are little riddles. They usually play on or against stereotypes (like jokes). They are like memes. Why do some memes go viral and others don't? They hit the sweet spot.

I hate the media

Reddit is part of the media

Yes, but Reddit is driven by users. Most of the rest of the media is driven by advertising dollars.

Reddit has ads

Valid point.

I forgot (adblock software)

If you like reddit you should blacklist it on adblock

the media is just a manifestation of what people wanna see and talk about. it's funded by viewership and the dollar signs that follow. maybe what you should hate is people who watch news channels. seriously those people give no fucks

Well the big difference is the cops committed the act and that never gets as big attention as a citizen with a gun.

Trayvon Martin's Parents hired a publicist. Maybe hire a multi-million dollar media consultant and the NYPD cop can be on the news too?

The Trayvon Martin case was in essence a distraction from the Bradley Manning wikileaks trial. The media wanted people to believe that a young child was murdered in cold blood. Other sources dug a little deeper and they showed him as wannabe thug with a history of violence and drug use. Fox and CNN portrait him as a victim of hate, they even posted pictures of him when he was twelve, when in fact he was 17. But lets face the reality here this story was used as a veil and the real story was unfolding behind closed doors.

It doesn't match any propaganda needs at the moment.

It's because Obama said "if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon"

Obama's Son

[deleted]

"You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon,"

I'm not that surprised. Still not GWB levels of batshit insane, but I'm sure he's getting there.

This is really something.... the state is quick to blab when an opportunity for division among the people arises....(especially with race thrown in), but when the people would instead unite against the police and govt, they keep it as quiet as possible.

Phew, I almost wasted my time typing out a long comment explaining why this post is so fucking asinine, then I realized I'm in /r/conspiracy. Close one.

i hate it when that happens. have better luck trying to explain it to my dog.

It's New York cops are corrupt as Shit, that's not news

[deleted]

I'd like to think there are good cops, namely because I want to become a cop

There definitely are good cops they are just overshadowed.

One bad apple, ignored for too long, will spoil the barrel. You see, when an apple rots it releases ethylene gas which is a ripening agent. This causes rot to spread from apple to apple like a disease. Bad cops don't release ethylene gas. Rather they transmit the rot through the Blue Wall of Silence. When good cops don't take down bad cops, they become bad cops.

We have ignored the few bad apples for too long. The barrel is rotten through.

There's also the news of offduty NJ cop (black) shoot and kill a white man on the side of the highway. There was zero body contact, but the black cop says he felt threatened.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/07/31/n-j-detective-says-he-had-no-choice-but-to-shoot-kill-man-in-road-rage-incident/

Um, the dude came screaming at him shouting how he is a fucking nigger this and that and how he was going to kill him. Didn't even slow when he knew he was a cop...this is a pretty easy one...

We definitely cant ask the other guy if that true, so well lets just go ahead and assume he's telling the truth.

Is there a video?

[deleted]

And you're just another piece of white trash that should be evicted from your trailer park and sent to Siberia.

Not white, don't live in a trailer park, and I hear Siberia is nice and quiet, one of the world's greatest undisturbed wilderness. It could make for a wonderful vacation.

Then maybe you should take your dumbass over there? Need less idiots here as it is. Also I seriously doubt the validity of your statements considering your previous one.

And what we need more murderers on the police force killing whoever the fuck they please? I bet you want to give the piece a shit a medal for "heroics" don't you? He needs to be in prison for abusing his authority and on death row for murdering someone in cold blood.

[deleted]

You are not trained LEO though. There are less lethal methods that could have been taken. He could have used his night stick and given a beat down. He could have used his taser and zapped the fuck out of him. Instead he chose death and went for the gun first. The problem is too many of these power-hungry thugs are choosing the LAST RESORT option as the first resort which is completely unacceptable. Off duty or not he made the choice to carry lethal weapon instead of less-lethal and chose to use that lethal weapon despite being no need for it. You are the idiot and are a useless contribution to society. Thinking like yours is the problem and I am very thankful you are not a LEO.

Edited: A bit.

Does anyone in this sub understand what ratings are?

Does anyone in this sub understand what reality is?

FTFY

MSNBC has done more to cover this than any of the other channels.

Divide and Conquer. Oh, and good ratings too.

Coming from /r/all and decided to give a real answer.

In 2012 the FBI reported 14,661 murders (this includes manslaughter). This averages just over 40 murders a day or a murder an hour. The real question is: why are some murders given more air time than others?

Most murders aren't too special/interesting and people don't care unless they live nearby. The goal of a news outlet is to give people content they care about. Very few want BREAKING NEWS: Another American murdered every hour.

Murders by on-duty cops are a little more interesting. The murder rate by cops is only 500/year (just over 1.33 per day or one every 18 hours). It's more important but news outlets still aren't going to have a daily "Another officer kills citizen" story.

If you have a video with proof that clearly shows something unjust happened, you're in a situation that happens once every few months. It's enough to mention but not enough to make a big story. Most people will be more interested in Israel.

The Zimmerman case wasn't just another murder. It brought into question the already controversial "stand your ground" law, giving both sides examples to argue. Plus add the fact that it was a older guy who was big into the community killing a younger kid. Plus add the fact it brought racial discrimination into the case. Add the fact it wasn't -00% clear what happened. Add the fact it was a slow news week making this one of the more important national events that happened at the time.

TL;DR: how relevant a story is and how much people care is directly proportional to news coverage.

Coverage is based upon demand

and untangible elements and luck

No hoodie or skittles.

The mass media has a fairly plain agenda to push - more power for the government, less power for the people. Under those simple guidelines, the disparity in reporting makes perfect sense.

All you need to do is look at how the media handled the Zimmerman affair to realize how orchestrated, how choreographed, it is. Almost the entire corporate media jumped on the Zimmerman case and they all took the same line, even though that line was manifestly unjust. Then they tried to push that line by distorting and misrepresenting the facts (showing Martin as a 13-year-old, editing the audio tape of Zimmerman's comments, avoiding comment on Martin's criminal history). Anyone who saw the outrageous abuse of the press in the Zimmerman case doesn't need to ask if the media is manipulating the public.

Because race issues stir people up and news sources exploit those tensions. The news channels get the ratings, and nothing is resolved. Zimmerman isn't even white, but the press made him white to make a more controversial story. No one cares about white on white violence, or black on white violence. White on black violence is a blockbuster. Mexican violence doesn't even register at all against anyone.

Cops vs Citizens isn't part of the divide and conquer strategy. Race vs. Race on the other hand, fits perfectly.

Cops don't get scrutinized, they are valuable to the state for obvious reasons. Mainly for smashing dissent against treasonous policies.

The Trayvon Martin shooting got way more press than it deserved, the man killed by police in NY got plenty of coverage.

I recommend reading The Iron Heel by Jack London Pub 1906

Here is a line from the book, this isn't the main point at all but just one piece to the story.

Look up the reporters that kept Jackson's case out of the papers, and the editors that run the papers. You will find them all slaves of the machine.

It may click in your heads that over 100 years ago the same sort of control occurred and 100s before that. This work was yet just another warning.

Free to read legally - http://www.jacklondons.net/writings/IronHeel/toc.html

When I read this I literally got chills.

This, then, is our answer. We have no words to waste on you. When you reach out your vaunted strong hands for our palaces and purpled ease, we will show you what strength is. In roar of shell and shrapnel and in whine of machine-guns will our answer be couched. We willl grind you revolutionists down under our heel, and we shall walk upon your faces. The world is ours. we are its lords, and ours it shall remain. As for the host of labour, it has been in the dirt since history began. And in the dirt shall it remain so long as I and mine and those that come after us have power. There is the word. It is the king of words. Power. Not God not mammon but Power.

The Iron Heel; Page 63 Jack London Year 1906

The news is either racist, has an agenda, or both. We saw weeks of coverage when those little white kids in Newton got killed but only a blurb when 13 black kids were gunned down in Chicago. Some as young as 3. did they report on that mass shooting for weeks?

The media sucks

It's not gun control if a cop kills someone, only civilians.

The Martin-Zimmerman is what will be referred to as a landmark case for several years to come; a similar incident will happen and the person doing the killing's lawyer will pull out this case and use it as an example. Basically saying "well if he didn't get in trouble, why should I?" The verdict ruled for that affected the future of American law in one way or another

Remember when the black guy killed the unarmed white teenager and Al Sharpton got him pardoned after he was convicted?

Wait did that realllly happen?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/john-white-convicted-killing-daniel-cicciaro-pardoned-gov-david-paterson-article-1.474441

Are you talking about the Staten Island man? I'm pretty sure he was killed while being arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes.

Are we talking about the guy that they wrestled to the ground and had some sort of heart condition?

Can't have the police getting reported and in trouble every time they murder someone.

I wouldn't really say this is a conspiracy, just another case of mass media pandering to stupid people. They know the "White man killing unarmed black child" story will get a lot of viewers, which means they can charge more money for advertising time and ultimately profit more. An officer killing an unarmed man is more controversial, causes people to think. They don't want that.

Because police killing slaves hasn't been news since the Civil War.

Its a well know game called Constructing False Realities which everyone should be aware of by now.

News in America or any capitalist society isn't based on what is most important or what citizens should be informed on, it is based on advertising and eyeballs. You can blame CNN but CNN isn't in the news business, they're in the making money business so they show what gets them the highest ratings.

cops kill dudes every 10 minutes, the public says they're "allowed to" because they're cops. it's not true but it's the idiot mindset.

the zimmerman thing was such a big deal because it was a vigilante thing. if it was a cop that shot trayvon nobody would've given a shit because "a cop did it so it must have been right"

white cops shoot black kids all the time and nobody cares

And that's why i created /r/underreportednews

Maybe it's because I'm in the NYC metro area, but this story is on the news every night. This morning's news had a report on a meeting with DiBlasio, Bratton and Al Sharpton covering this very issue.

what skin color does said man possess?

He's black and fairly large, there's no way they can plaster a younger face of him on the screen.

So, you want more people to know about the incident where the NYPD cops kill a guy.

Why not give a link to the story, or tell us what you're talking about?

Unless it can be sensationalized, the news wont report it.

Because the government doesn't want to take guns away from the government. The government wants to take guns from the people

police are the biggest gang which means they get what they want. From much coverage to no coverage. The media is the women side of the gang like latin queens or the "cholas of the hood" they work together

Because blacks

http://nypost.com/2014/08/01/staten-island-chokehold-victim-death-ruled-a-homicide/

It's not because the trayvon case was racial (though that's a large part of why it got attention) that i got coverage in contrast to this, this got no coverage because cops can do whatever the fuck they want and the media doesn't criticize government thugs

Because cops will motherfucking kill you...you motherfucker if you say something!!! Where's that fucking dog!!!

Because we're held hostage by the police and their unions. No one wants to upset the police and the sheep that support them in this post 9/11 world

Sadly the media controls everybody. Right now where I live a girl found a wallet with 2000 dollars cash in it at a local Texas Roadhouse. She reported like every employee should do. The owner got it back, and tipped the girl 20 dollars for that. But it got in the newspaper and the news channel. And the media was making this guy sound cheap. So now she is getting money from people because they thought the man was cheap an didn't give her enough. I personally think that she didn't really do it because she thought it was the right thing to do, I think she did it because it's most likely a policy to report lost things. And if she tried to pocket it, and the wallet was reported lost by the man himself. And they looked at the footage from cameras she would be seen pocketing the cash. So then she would be fired. But anyways, sorry for my ranting on.. My point is that the media has control over people's minds. They only have things on the news that are controversial. Like you hear about a murder on the news. But most of the time it's only on the news for like 5 mins then done. But like the Zimmerman case, it was controversial, so people would watch it non-stop

I was just wondering the same thing myself.

Zimmerman was a wannabe cop and these were actual cops and clearly justified because they have badges.

It's just sad and infuriating. Cops who abuse their badge should be punished and not given a free pass just because of their occupation.

If Zimmerman was a wannabe cop why didn't he take the squad car the police offered him?

the cop's did not kill that man. The health issues resulting from his extreme obesity killed him. Anyone who thinks that "choke hold" killed him is a fucking moron and knows nothing about anything that could be called a choke.

In that case you better get on the phone right away and tell the medical examiners that they aren't doing their jobs correctly...

"A New York City man's death last month resulted in part from a chokehold applied by a police officer trying to arrest him, a medical examiner said Friday, in ruling it a homicide."

Responding to demand

It's been on he news pretty much every day since in NYC, so... eh?

The idea is to fuel already tense lines dividing many communities presently in hopes, I assume, do generate even more division. I would also assume that the reasoning behind that would be political in nature. More votes? No idea.

I don't think that's a conspiracy as much as it is an example of how much our media sucks

"objective" journalism doesn't exist ... it's propaganda to make you believe in them

news is always slanted and journalists know it

That was a tough video to watch. Do they not understand you can strangle someone to death? He had a right to defend himself verbally from unjustified arrest, and he was killed for it.

I don't think the guy should have been killed. But, the place to fight it is in court. He should have just cooperated with the arresting officers. Then, he should have called a lawyer and sued the crap out of the officers and the police department. The officers are a bunch of goons. They aren't going to listen to you. Resisting them or trying to protest only escalates the violence. Ideally, the police should be smart and reasonable people. But, most of them aren't. They tend to be drug and alcohol abusers who have violent tendencies, poor impulse control, anger management issues, and low IQs. They are hired muscle.

How was he uncooperative? The cop who killed him has a history of violations.

I don't know. I haven't watched the video. I believe you on the history of violations from the cop. All I'm saying is that "defending yourself verbally" against a goon is an exercise in futility. You're better off not doing it. Present your case to a judge instead.

CNN has major operations in NYC, and often need police cooperation to do their reporting, and get access to people/places/events/etc. They don't want to risk souring that relationship.

I've accepted that main stream news outlets only cover what people are willing to read/watch, not what is important. There are some great police officers out there, with great training and use great judgement; there are more police officers who use brute force and manipulation to get funding for their new sweet ass cruiser...

Race-baiting drives everything these days

It was covered. Shit, my crazy uncle even knew about it and all he does is sleep.

I thought he was caught selling Lucys?

Because, Zimmerman was a white and RACIST man who definitely wasn't attacked first! Actually, wait a minute....sorry I was channeling the demon know as Nancy Grace there. My bad.

because it is not a sexy news title, it dosent sell. People know that Police have killed people in the past during arrest, whether it be misconduct or at the fault of the party being arrested. However, a big bad white man who shoots a poor little innocent black child is something that people eat up. And not to bring racism into this, but the majority of people who tend to sensationalize news coverage are uneducated. The majority of uneducated are blacks and other minorities. It is simple marketing, if you want people to eat something up then give them something simple to chew. There is no video evidence of the trayvon shooting so it is disputable, however this arrest was on film and it look standard to every other police misconduct video. The truth hurts, but it is true that nobody gives a shit about a fat old black man but a young innocent child with their life ahead of them is a different sales pitch.

I really think you guys don't even know what a conspiracy is.

Were skittles and arizona tea involved?

2 hassidic guys were immolated in williamsburg, brooklyn but that didnt get national news either. I understand your point OP, and I've been thinking the same thing for a while

You guys are hilarious. All of you

Cops "justifiably" kill people all the time. I live in Milwaukee and last year MPD killed someone by keeping him in the back of a squad car, not heeding to his cries that he needed his meds. Only local media cared. Cops suspended with pay.

In NYC its all theyre reporting on since it happened

there is a direct relation between news coverage and skittles involved.

/r/shitpost

Being featured on NBC's Nightly News right now.

On the fucking front page in giant 52px font?

http://cl.ly/WsD9

Article link?

NPR talked on it today, supposedly the medical examiners upgraded the death to homicide. The cop is completely suspended and the DA is considering the charges to bring up. But yes I agree, the shill media at its finest with that BS.

The 24 hour news cycle and the focus on ratings over importance have had a big effect on the news industry.

Plus there is no scoreboard on how to treat one story as opposed to another. How many minutes and hours do you spend on the Trayvon killing, as opposed to any other murder?

Young kids dissapear and die every day, but somehow Jon Benet Ramsey got shit tons of coverage then and even now.

It's not fair, it's business. Sick as it is.

Those type of manufactured "news" stories are piped into your house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week are done so to keep you in a perpetual state of fear and confusion, making you along wig your uneducated masses neighbors that much easier to control.

Was this rhetorical, or are you still living confused? Before you answer that, who controlled all networks? Who controls the lies that are fed to you so regularly?

"There is no news. There is only the truth of the signal. What I see. And, there's the puppet theater the Parliament jesters foist on the somnambulant public." - Serenity (2005)

It is only news if they are trying to make you look the other way. A distraction to look right while on the left tue real crime is being committed. That is just my theory.

The media didnt cover Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman until several weeks after. There were thousands of people protesting in cities across the country. Then the media started covering. Then the police began investigating. The media will cover it once they realize it has monetary value. The whole point of CNN is to sell advertising.

Can't have the police state looking bad

FYI Here is an Update ABC News reported.

Medical Examiner Says Chokehold by Police Officer Caused Death of NYC Man; Ruled Homicide

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/alpha-plans-1100-layoffs-coal-mines-wva-cites-24796743

To be fair this happened during Israel/Iraq/Ebola breaking news coverage so the likelihood of a major news organization covering it at a respectable hour is slim.

Most Americans voluntarily segregate. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4699166/Obamas-attorney-general-claims-US-is-voluntarily-segregated.html

But Trayvon was a sweet, innocent, baby.

Media portrayal

The "innocent" picture isn't Trayvon Martin.

Then i guess this guy is a thug. And this guy. And this guy

Hmmm none of those people were sneaking through the bushes or beat someone's head with a piece of cement. But I get your point though.

Here is a picture of internationally loved star Mark Wahlburg

At 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious while yelling a racial epithet. That same day, he also attacked another Vietnamese man, gouging out one of his eyes with a meathook.

Be he LOOKS like such an upstanding guy who wouldn't get a second look in a nice neighborhood would he?

sneaking through the bushes or beat someone's head with a piece of cement.

If you want to believe the word of a guy that pulls his gun on his ex wife whatever. Stand up for the convicted criminal

It's been a year since the case. Let it go.

That's fucking hypocritical. You'll be bringing up trayvon martin for years to come disparaging a dead 16 yo kid.

Poor baby Trayvon. So innocent. Just wanted his drugs.

[deleted]

Man look at you!

Why would you make your screen name your first initial and last name then tell people on here you're a teacher in South Carolina? That's pretty identifiable information. Not many last name: Hamby first initial: B teachers in South Carolina. Is this you?:

http://www.independentmail.com/news/education/with-fact-box-tp-fact-box

You make $37,500 as a teacher down there? YIKES! No wonder you are so angry.

I feel sorry for your students over at Starr-Iva Middle School, Mr. Hamby. Their teacher is a racist.

Here's a hint, I teach in Charleston county. Keep trying!

Bullshit you're a Clemson Tigers fan. They are located in Anderson County. You give yourself away. Nice try Bryan

And you still have enough time to jerk it on reddit. Look at you, Mr. Big Guy.

Is that any way for a South Carolina teacher to talk about our nations youth, Mr. Hamby?

Oh no I'm so scared! Like baby trayvon running in the bushes!

Cause he was white probably.

Fox news?

Trayvon Martin was a teenager.

...and the killing was ruled a homicide.

You only hear about this sort of thing when it is white on black, because according to today's standards, there is an automatic racial motive. You never hear about black on white crimes, because (again, according to today's standards) black people cannot be racists, only victims. You probably didn't hear about these:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/wave-of-black-mobs-brutalizing-whites/

http://thegraph.com/2012/04/another-white-man-critically-beaten-20-black-racist-thugs-assault-him-citing-justice-for-trayvon/

http://www.sott.net/article/264050-List-of-Trayvon-Martin-supporters-making-retaliatory-attacks-grows

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3043693/posts

Its sickening how the media and our culture has purported all white people racists and all black people victims. The real victims of today are the white people, being singled out by the black people for allegedly being "advocates for slavery".

TL;DR Black people victimizing themselves are why our society is fucked, and white people are labeled as "racists".

The only thing anybody should take away from the George Zimmerman case is how broken our justice system is.

If George Zimmerman didn't have people donating $500,000+ to him for having killed a black kid, who knows how the case would have been.

They probably over charged him w\ murder... But they probably would have had no trouble convicting of a lesser offense like negligent homicide or manslaughter.

At the end of the trial, it was a joke. The prosecution repeatedly showing witnesses pictures of Zimmerman's head and pointing to things you couldn't tell were injuries and getting people to give them answers that only further confused the situation.

They put the victim of the case on trial, which should really sicken anybody actually believes in our justice system.

Most people, 96% if I'm not mistaken in our justice system plea out to charges. What does that mean? It means they're put in a position where they're made to believe if they proceed with fighting charges, that they'll be locked up for a much longer period of time. SO, 96% of people settle for not going down that road.

Zimmerman was one of these 4% who could afford legal defense 96% of the population can't afford if facing criminal charges.

The system is a farce.

Arrest you for bullshit, give you a plea deal which involves thousands of dollars in court and probation fees. I've seen a significant portion of friends go through this. It's a goddamn racket.

Yep... The worst part is that the system is "middle class" people. Somebody working an honest job to support their family can't afford time off work, lawyer fees, and all that.

on the other hand, rich people can... and people without jobs who aren't doing the right thing can get free representation.

It's basically an extremely high regressive tax which occasionally involves brutal beatings, summary execution, theft, destruction of property, rape, psychological torture of jail/prison, and forced labor enforced by uneducated, racist swine sanctioned by corporate owned, racist, filthy rich sociopaths paid by our money through both taxes and consumption of corporate goods and services. Basically, fascism, totalitarianism, feudalism never died. It just learned new disguises.

Though I disagree with you about the poor. The free representation is worthless and the "crimes" they commit are either trivial, non-violent, or a result of the fascist and racist nature of the government. Not saying murderers, rapists, etc. don't deserved punishment. Just that some of the other "criminals" aren't actually criminals at all. Others lacked the education and social necessities to know better. And others may have their backs against the wall.

Well the point I was trying to get across is that there's so many cases that they literally could not take to a trial. No evidence, bad evidence.. you name it.

That's where the game comes in. You have to take off work to come to a 8:30 court date. Sit there for 2 hours, before somebody tells you it's being reset because there really wasn't anything even planned to happen that day anyhow aside from get you to miss a day of work and put stress on you to do what they want at the next date.

They were just summoning you to court to give you a taste and fuck with you.

Then you goto court the next time around and find out you can either pay your lawyer thousands of dollars you don't have, admit guilt to a crime that they can't convict you of in a trial, or go on probation in order to get the case off your record and in the process let them pad their books to make it look like they're doing their job.

They probably over charged him w\ murder... But they probably would have had no trouble convicting of a lesser offense like negligent homicide or manslaughter.

Zimmerman was charged with manslaughter and the jury said not guilty.

They put the victim of the case on trial, which should really sicken anybody actually believes in our justice system.

Exactly, Zimmerman was the victim in this case. Why did they put him on trial? It makes me sick.

Zimmerman was charged with murder until the final days of trial where they after presenting a failed case for murder were in desperation mode.

Per my original comments in the thread, had they not been rushed into pressing such charges and properly charged him, they easily would have gotten a lesser conviction.

That's because normal citizens don't stop what they're doing to follow around minors, and then shoot to kill when they apparently are too fucking soft to defend themselves against a minor who for all intents and purposes could be viewed as defending himself against a stranger in the night following him to do god knows what.

Zimmerman was charged with murder until the final days of trial where they after presenting a failed case for murder were in desperation mode.

haha you don't know how charges work!

Per my original comments in the thread, had they not been rushed into pressing such charges and properly charged him, they easily would have gotten a lesser conviction.

Per my original comments in the thread, they had a bulllshit case. They had no evidence. They only charged him for political reasons.

That's because normal citizens don't stop what they're doing to follow around minors

Yes, they do. It happened literally the week or two before. The burglar was arrested because he didn't try to murder the people following him on the phone with cops.

who for all intents and purposes could be viewed as defending himself against a stranger in the night following him to do god knows what.

haha you don't know what defending means

Yes.. they "overcharged" him for political reasons. And in doing so lost their chance of convicting him of the killing which wouldnt' have happened if he'd stayed in his car.

What do you think they didn't charge him with that they should have charged him?

Manslaughter... negligent homocide. Some of YOU people get off on these tangents talking about what he did wasn't illegal. And you do this because it's true.

But when you add all of the things together, it adds up to a criminal offense.

-Was driving to the store when he spotted Trayvon and thought him to be an entirely different black kid ( they all look alike, I know. )

-Calls police to report the suspicious person ( he had done this before. Never before had he left his vehicle to tail the person on foot )

-Agrees to meet police and immediately changes his mind, and sets off in the direction where the altercation would take place. Going back to the previous point, he knew not to do this from his previous incidents similar to this one.

police were en route, he was not looking for a street sign after having just agreed to meet police at a specific location away from where the alteration would take place.

Thats where the crime comes in. He knew right from wrong. He knew the limits of his role as neighborhood watch. He agreed to meet police at a specific location... and then apparently said to hell with that, and set off to where the altercation would take place.

As much as anybody can say trayvon should have run home, etc etc... that logic applies to zimmerman's actions 100 fold because he was in his car, going to the store when he stopped in order to ultimately kill a teenager doing what teenage kids do. I'm sure glad when I was 16-17 walking around the neighborhood getting high that nobody went out of their way to murk me.

Manslaughter... negligent homocide. Some of YOU people get off on these tangents talking about what he did wasn't illegal. And you do this because it's true.

He was charged with manslaughter and found not guilty.

So not only do you not know what drink Trayvon had on him, but you don't know about the lesser included charges.

Did you know they tried to charge Zimmerman with 3rd degree murder based on child abuse?

But when you add all of the things together, it adds up to a criminal offense. -Was driving to the store when he spotted Trayvon and thought him to be an entirely different black kid ( they all look alike, I know. )

This is news to me! Who did Zimmerman think Trayvon was? What makes you think he knew he was black when he spotted Trayvon? Have you heard the NEN call?

-Calls police to report the suspicious person ( he had done this before. Never before had he left his vehicle to tail the person on foot )

Not illegal to call police. Not illegal to tail people on foot in your own neighborhood.

-Agrees to meet police and immediately changes his mind, and sets off in the direction where the altercation would take place. Going back to the previous point, he knew not to do this from his previous incidents similar to this one.

Is it illegal to change your mind when talking to NEN dispatchers? No.

police were en route, he was not looking for a street sign after having just agreed to meet police at a specific location away from where the alteration would take place.

What makes you say this?

Thats where the crime comes in. He knew right from wrong. He knew the limits of his role as neighborhood watch. He agreed to meet police at a specific location... and then apparently said to hell with that, and set off to where the altercation would take place.

This statement proves you have no idea what happened that night.

As much as anybody can say trayvon should have run home, etc etc... that logic applies to zimmerman's actions 100 fold because he was in his car, going to the store when he stopped in order to ultimately kill a teenager doing what teenage kids do. I'm sure glad when I was 16-17 walking around the neighborhood getting high that nobody went out of their way to murk me.

The logic does not apply to Zimmerman's actions because Zimmerman didn't start a physical confrontation/fight. Trayvon did.

Trayvon knew Zimmerman had no idea where he was. The fact that he didn't go home proves he had bad motives. It also proves he started the fight because he stopped heading home to double back and attack Zimmerman.

Meanwhile Zimmerman, having lost Trayvon was attempting to return to his vehicle and meet police.

I'm almost content to just keep responding to you to get you to keep typing things out.

It's obvious you have no interest in understanding the world we all live in. One where people agree to meet police and then claim to be looking for street signs to tell police where they are in their own neighborhood...

Really.. come on. You and many other people have this idea that you think you know what happened.

What I'm telling you is I don't know what happened... and you don't know what happened.

George Zimmerman does... and he plead the fifth to prevent from cross examination resulting in him being found guilty.

Most people in his situation don't have people donating 500k to them for killing a black kid. An average person in his situation with no media coverage would at the end of the day plead their case, because they'd be rail roaded into a plea deal and threatened with harsh prison time if they dont.

That's what this is all about really. Our fucked up justice system. If you're rich, you get off. If you're poor, you get a lawyer appointed to you. If you're in the middle, you get nothing.

If everybody had $500k lawyers defending them, we'd have like... 30-40% conviction rate for all crimes.

Really.. come on. You and many other people have this idea that you think you know what happened.

It's almost like I have a brain and can analyze data!

What I'm telling you is I don't know what happened... and you don't know what happened.

Oh, I know you don't know what happened. I don't know 100% what happened ,but based on all the research I've done and evidence I've seen I can tell you that I know more about what happened than you do.

George Zimmerman does... and he plead the fifth to prevent from cross examination resulting in him being found guilty.

Oh come on that is the worst argument ever. No legal expert in the country suggested he testify. There was absolutely no case against him. No reason for him to testify and let those "sneaky lawyers" trip him up into saying something he didn't mean to.

Most people in his situation don't have people donating 500k to them for killing a black kid. An average person in his situation with no media coverage would at the end of the day plead their case, because they'd be rail roaded into a plea deal and threatened with harsh prison time if they dont.

An average person in his situation with no media coverage wouldn't have been charged.

Much like how Zimmerman wasn't charged until the Martin Family got a multi-million dollar PR/Media consultant involved.

The media rail roaded him into a kangaroo court joke of a trial.

And now brainwashed people like you are surprised at the obvious outcome.

That's what this is all about really. Our fucked up justice system. If you're rich, you get off. If you're poor, you get a lawyer appointed to you. If you're in the middle, you get nothing.

Our fucked up justice system where if someone attacks you like Trayvon and his parents have enough rich friends (Sharpton, Ryan Julison, Crump) they can get the state to throw you in jail and cost you 500k$ in legal fees. It's sick.

If everybody had $500k lawyers defending them, we'd have like... 30-40% conviction rate for all crimes.

When the state spends millions of dollars to convict you of a crime you didn't commit it costs a lot of money to defend yourself.

That is a problem.

Let's be real. You can be as pro constitution as you want to be.

When a person takes the fifth, that's very telling. Look at the IRS scandal recently where the woman took the fifth. What did everybody take that to mean?

That she's hiding something. No other conclusion to be reached.

Same w\ Zimmerman. and it's even more funny because the people who come out all pro 5th amendment are the same ones who will spout bullshit like " Well, if you have nothing to hide ... " or in the IRS case, call shenanigans when this woman takes the fifth.

The idea that you have people make up stories to convince a jury based on testimony that will never be vetted is simply retarded. It's a dog and pony show and shows our justice system to be a complete joke.

Zimmerman will forever be filed away with the likes of OJ and Tot Mom.

When a person takes the fifth, that's very telling. Look at the IRS scandal recently where the woman took the fifth. What did everybody take that to mean?

LOL two wrongs make a right! This is the funniest stretch I've seen you make yet.

The idea that you have people make up stories to convince a jury based on testimony that will never be vetted is simply retarded. It's a dog and pony show and shows our justice system to be a complete joke.

What?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdeo7Q2E5cE

With professionals like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIKppHDJSJc#t=23 leading the investigation, you can't take any chances with testifying.

Lois Lerner is a rich and powerful person using the 5th amendment to protect herself while she takes advantage of the common man.

Zimmerman was a common man using the 5th amendment to protect himself from the rich and powerful people seeking to take advantage of him.

I only brought up Lois Lerner because of the clear partisan lines w\ these 2 issues. There's alot of people pissed about her taking the fifth, but then in other instances they're steadfast for the fifth and will even argue that it doesn't make a person look guilty for taking it.

Well Lois Lerner is basically caught destroying evidence. That doesn't make her look good.

Who got caught trying to destroy evidence in the Zimmmerman case? The prosecution.

He wasn't a cute little innocent child....

edited to add: The question in the title asked where the coverage was for the dead man...it's not there because the media can't spin him as an innocent child killed by a racist....like they did for the thug killed by GM.

White guy smokes some weed

r/conspiracy: VICTIMLESS CRIME! STOP THE DEMONIZATION

Trayvon smokes some weed

r/conspiracy: WHAT A THUG, INNOCENT CHILD MY ASS!

Trayvon committed assault and battery. Assault and battery is a crime.

gee, should I have added /sarcasm?

this guy really didn't do anything either, he was just trying to feed his damn family selling bones, fucking cops need to acknowledge that these laws kill people. I'm not in favor of hating the cop, it was after all his job and he didn't "shoot when I thought I was tasering" it's the legislators that put them in a position of conflict who need to answer.

the guy was fat and he had a heart attack. this guy reminded me of patrice o'neal, was hard to see him die like that.

Jesus fuck you guys are racist.

And idiots.

Lol, care to explain how it's racist?

I wasn't talking about the title, only the comments.

Justice for Trayvon.

Trayvon got justice.

You bought into that crap from the media hook-line-and-sinker didn't you?

Zimmerman gave him justice right through the heart!

Can't flim flam the zim zam.

OH SNAP.

Arrest you for bullshit, give you a plea deal which involves thousands of dollars in court and probation fees. I've seen a significant portion of friends go through this. It's a goddamn racket.

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I'm done arguing with you.

And conversely, nothing was keeping Zimmerman from behaving like an adult and as he knew he was supposed to be acting.

This is where the crime comes in, where had they not over charged him he'd have been convicted.

He knew what he was doing was wrong. This wasn't the first young black kid he'd called the cops on. However, it was apparently the first where he decided not to wait on police to arrive and took it upon himself to do their job.

As per so many other things, this is all verified via audio recordings whereas anything about trayvon is speculation and totally unverified.

Yes keep saying, if things had happened differently things would be different. Trayvon does not have yo go in his house. Zim should have waited for police. Instead he decides to play cop. Zim could have waited for the police and things would be different(your favorite way to excuse zimms shitty actions works both ways) . But keep blaming trayvon if it makes you feel better.

i'm not sure if the media would have even reported it. The only reason why you know of zimmerman is because of how it went down. If it went down some other way you more than likely would never have heard of him.

You're probably right.

The media is manipulating us to push an agenda.

It only works if you let them.

killing self-defense shooting

FTFY

The judge decided that no murder or manslaughter charges apply.

It was purely self defense.

i joke that hispanics/latinos are schrodinger whites -- the white-ness matters when they do something wrong, the 'brown-ness' matter when somebody does something wrong to them.

I doubt the media would have been against him if it was a white teen.

Al Sharpton wouldn't have cared enough to get media attention on it. If Zimmerman was black and got convicted he would have gotten the govenor to pardon him.

He was identified, by the media, as a "white hispanic"

that's not just a media identification. race and ethnicity are two different things.

For comparison purposes, President Obama is a "black" man

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/04/15/most-americans-say-obama-is-not-black-heres-why-that-pew-poll-is-wrong/

watermelon iced tea

lol still holding onto the iced tea bullshit

it was watermelon fruit juice cocktail...if you can't even get the basic facts of the case right why should we even bother trying to discuss it with you?

Anything else is without any facts to back it up

What about the facts that we know from the receipt at 7-11 how much money Trayvon had when he left. Easily comparable with the amount of money he had on his corpse. Why don't they match?

Well there is 7-11 video tape that gives us hints.

What was Trayvon doing for 45 minutes?

And you're just another piece of white trash that should be evicted from your trailer park and sent to Siberia.

You're dumb.

*Battery

To add to your many good points, even if Zimmerman threw the first punch, he STILL would have been legally justified in shooting Martin, had he been on his back screaming for help while being pummeled by Martin as the evidence suggested. See the "Justifiable Use of Force by an Aggressor" section of the law.

Did you just say Obama almost never talks about race?

I take it you don't live in the US or follow much of what he says.

Whoever is downvoting this is delusional

No, for thinking what you're saying is the end all be all truth.

They probably over charged him w\ murder... But they probably would have had no trouble convicting of a lesser offense like negligent homicide or manslaughter.

Zimmerman was charged with manslaughter and the jury said not guilty.

They put the victim of the case on trial, which should really sicken anybody actually believes in our justice system.

Exactly, Zimmerman was the victim in this case. Why did they put him on trial? It makes me sick.

Right, of course BHO made this statement on the pure genetic argument. Your right.

Even your supports refute your own incorrect claims.

You said:

Face it, the SYG law had nothing to do with this case.

The Final Jury Instructions said:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

If the Final Jury Instructions specifically used the words "he had no duty to retreat" and "had the right to stand his ground", how can you claim that SYG had nothing to do with this case?

...

Or are you an information warfare worker paid to perpetuate this wrong information?

lol

Downvoted but it's absolutely the truth. Even after all the facts of media manipulation, bias and propaganda, people still believe what they're told to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I hope you're never around anyone's kids. You're the traditionalist holding society back with outdated backwards thinking. My parents beat the shit out of me. Did that keep me out of jail? No. Were they able to stop me from getting beaten and robbed at school? No. Were they able to stop me from getting beat in the streets? No. They beat me at home, beat me in the streets, and beat me at school. Now I have to see therapists and take medication because I'm on probation for my violent behavior.

But besides using myself as an example, go do some real research. Like I said, numbers don't lie.

Valid point.

I forgot (adblock software)

The media would have completely ignored it.

But it wasn't brought up until the 911 operator asked.

Zimmerman was charged with murder until the final days of trial where they after presenting a failed case for murder were in desperation mode.

haha you don't know how charges work!

Per my original comments in the thread, had they not been rushed into pressing such charges and properly charged him, they easily would have gotten a lesser conviction.

Per my original comments in the thread, they had a bulllshit case. They had no evidence. They only charged him for political reasons.

That's because normal citizens don't stop what they're doing to follow around minors

Yes, they do. It happened literally the week or two before. The burglar was arrested because he didn't try to murder the people following him on the phone with cops.

who for all intents and purposes could be viewed as defending himself against a stranger in the night following him to do god knows what.

haha you don't know what defending means