A secret witness says Trayvon Martin did attack George Zimmerman:
[O]ne man’s testimony could be key for the police.
“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.
Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense.
There’s still the matter of Zimmerman pursuing Martin, and Martin being unarmed, to sort out. It’s even possible that what the witness saw looked like Martin attacking Zimmerman, but because of the pursuit, it was really Martin acting in self-defense. It’s also possible the police have been unfairly maligned in all this. That wouldn’t exactly be a first in the career of either Al Sharpton or, if he is unwise enough to do it, Barack Obama.
Update: The Black Panthers have become a lynch mob.
Very interesting point in a tragic case.
But I have a question: why do we allow the left to dictate “what we are talking about” all the time.
I have already said that this case is tragic, and of course it must be fully investigated, but how many tragic cases do happen every day, in every part of the country, and do not become the theme of a public debate ? Why do we always allow the left to decide what must be at the center of the debates ?
How many terrible cases are there every day, of black (white, asian, latinos, any) people murdering other people in horrible ways ? Do we debate them ?
Why we don’t ?
It is correct to ask for a full investigation of this case.
Do we ask for a full investigation of all cases ? Do we rally the public opinion about all the other cases ?
Why we don’t ?
The propaganda machine of the left always decides what the titles on the newspapers will be tomorrow.
Why don’t we start doing the same ?
How many crimes do happen every day in every part of the country ?
Would the left be helped or damaged if we could bring all of them to the center of the public attention ?
And I repeat for the third time, my questions do not mean that I am trying to change the subject of the present discussion. I just ask why we don’t widen it. Why don’t we make it complete, exhaustive, serious, deep ?
The reason is two-fold:
First, liberals control the media.
Second, conservatives pay attention to the media.
Simple equation.
The far-leftists foresaw this decades ago and set out on a “long march” to seize control of the media and by extension the national narrative.
It would take decades — if it was even possible — to undo this. They will not consciously let go of their chokehold on the media complex.
The only option is to start from scratch and create an alternative mediasphere. That’s what blogs are doing, and alternative news portals like PJMedia, and talk radio. It’s the only route we have, aside from the slow-motion process of sneaking crypto-conservatives into media outlets and little by little changing the culture from within.
But the second part is easy to undo:
Just stop paying attention to the media. Period. Then the left will be left talking to itself.
You might think that I, as a “professional pundit,” follow the news and the media closely. Far from it. I haven’t watched TV since 9/11, and I almost never read mainstream newspapers or magazines. I only find out about what the mainstream is discussing by hearing of it second-hand through blogs and pundits.
Strategy:
promote and visit alternative information sources;
ignore the mainstream media;
and when you do perceive the MSM, endlessly criticize and expose its lies.
It’s a nice plan, and it is talking about what I pointed at with my questions.
But I have to add, and it is probably something that it’s more due to my age than to a clear reflection, that all this makes me a tad sad.
I know it is a long battle and we have to fight it.
But it reminds me of the samizdat.
We already living a two-tiers reality, the Pravda reality and the samizdat reality, the truth spread through home-made literature, pamphlets, fliers.
This was America. Once upon a time…free…
Sorry for the OT
The far-leftists foresaw this decades ago and set out on a “long march” to seize control of the media and by extension the national narrative.
You’re a paranoid.
And your approach is flawed because right wing media, Fox being the primary, isn’t known for honesty either. Actually it’s become a sewer of resentment where people are LESS honest than the mainstream media but feel justified in ever more extreme lies.
What we need is to be able to always agree on the facts if not on policies.
We get ever further from that goal.
I used to think we needed more subjective media. That was the consensus in the 70s. Unfortunately we got what we asked for. Now I think I know better. It was a monkey’s paw wish.
We need media that everyone can trust.
It’s not paranoia, it’s a well-documented and longstanding plan. Read your Gramsci.
Journalists in the “old days” used to be split 50-50 liberal/conservative, with actually the vast majority of them being “apolitical.” But recent polls revealed that 93% (if I rememeber correctly) of journalists self-identify as “liberal” or something to the left of liberal.
Do you think this epochal shift is accidental? Of course not. Starting in the late ’60s leftist profressors read their Gramsci and intentionally steered generations of leftist students into the journalism field.
As a result, the media’s presentation of “facts” can no longer be trusted. That is not a bug, that is a feature.
As you correctly point out, the left and the right do not really disagree on policy, they disagree on what the fundamental facts are upon which any policy would be based. Conservatives believe that their set of “facts” more closely reflect reality, and liberals believe that their set of “facts” more closely reflect reality. And at this stage, very little is going to dissuade either side.
So then the only recourse is to stand back and see where each side’s policy will take us, regardless of “facts.” And in dong so, I see that the liberals want big government and encroaching totalitarianism. The conservatives/Tea Party want to increase personal autonomy and freedom and shrink the power of government. Thus, that’s the only logical team (for me) to side with.
Ok, Gramski I’ve heard of.
Though calling the Democrats “totalitarian” reminds me of a THIRD problem here, the corruption of the English language for propaganda purposes. The word “totalitarian” has a meaning and the Democrats don’t match it. Period.
The word “socialist” is a better example of how conservatives are replacing the dictionary with talking points. You can argue till you’re blue in the face that the word socialist has a real meaning and that mainstream politicians (Democrat or Republican) shouldn’t be called socialist, that mainstream economists shouldn’t be called socialist.
And the current crop of Limbaugh and internet forum “educated” conservatives won’t budge an inch.
But the problem arises not when it’s clear that they’ve changed the meaning of the word, the problem arises when the purpose of that slippage is clear. Not only will they not admit that they’ve changed the word and are calling normal mixed market capitalists “socialist” but they then go on to call them “useful idiots” and “fellow travelers” and implying that everyone left of Jim DeMint is deliberately working to destroy western civilization or working for someone who is.
So the word “socialist” now means mainstream capitalist, but then the slippage is always pushed to the propaganda point of pretending that all mainstream capitalists are the OLD meaning of the word “socialist” or (really) “communist”.
Back on the journalism.
Well the cold war is over, the soviet union is dead. The old J-School 60′s socialists have no agenda left to push. Expect them to become totally irrelevant.
The purpose should be to go back to politics where people can agree on facts. The purpose should be to put a bullet into the head of dishonest journalism. And that includes the right wing hysterics whose dictionary itself is a lie.
It’s time that we wrote our articles in English instead of trying to turn English into right wing newspeak.
I think left wing journalism is failing, and I think that not-conected-with-reality right wing media is a money maker but political poison.
So what’s next?
“The word “totalitarian” has a meaning and the Democrats don’t match it. ”
Really?
Tried to buy a 100 Watt light bulb recently? Planning on maintaining your health insurance? How about their constant agitating for regulating our diets and exercise?
And your approach is flawed because right wing media, Fox being the primary, isn’t known for honesty either.
Fox is hardly ‘right wing media’ – it employs scores of journalists, many of whom have adopted the Gramscian left bias, whether consciously or not. That’s the peer group, having matriculated through years of leftist college and leftist professors (the Long March cohort) and urban liberal mindset.
You confuse Fox’s editorials with its news reporting. Many do likewise with the Wall Street Journal, whose news is also left-liberal by groupthink, while its editorials are conservative. Critical thinking is apparently not a concern to you.
Can you defend labeling factual reporting ‘dishonesty’ simply for its noticing and describing acts and events that the NYT et al tend to exclude from the ‘narrative’ of the daily news?
Ok, then the problem isn’t a specific bias but that bias in general has acceptable in journalism.
What we need is a space for a mass journalism (or people’s journalism movement) that is objective. But very few people want to participate in that do they?
I can name one objective journalist off the top of my head. And he doesn’t report on domestic issues which makes it easy right? And he wouldn’t fit in around here would he?
The problem with that is there is no such thing as objective journalism. Every story is written by one person with a viewpoint and is edited by another person with their own viewpoint. Even when everyone involved is making a good-faith effort to be honest their reports are going to provide, at best, a filtered version of truth. If anyone in the process has decided something is more important that truth then all bets are off. Things are complicated by the fact that journalists are, by training and inclination, incompetent at every field outside of journalism.
Jeff Gauch, what you’ve written is totally wrong, postmodernist claptrap.
It’s very tiring to be faced with a fallacy so basic that you’ve totally denied all human ability to reason, all intellect.
Of course it’s possible to attempt to be honest and objective – because, of course, it is common to attempt the opposite, dishonest manipulation.
And you are attempting to equate manipulativeness with its opposite based on the fallacy that human goals like objectivity can’t be achieved with absolute perfection.
At base you’re trying excuse dishonest and manipulative media by claiming that there is no such thing as perfect honesty.
But the fact is that there is a huge difference between the results of a good faith attempt to avoid being manipulative, and what is common now the deliberate attempt to be manipulative.
Facing a denial so absolute as yours is exhausting, because it’s so huge. A claim as huge as your own only works because it dazzles the mind with its scale, like Hitler’s big lie technique.
To sum up, it is possible to work toward objectivity, and the result of working toward it is objectively different than the result of doing the opposite. To sum up there is such a thing as intellect, there is such a thing as judgement, there is such a thing as a fact and there is such a thing as a truth – just as there is such a thing as a lie.
Well the cold war is over, the soviet union is dead. The old J-School 60′s socialists have no agenda left to push. Expect them to become totally irrelevant.
Irrelevant? They’re now the producers and the editors and the professors, and absolutely they’re sticking to their old anticapitalist, anti-’American hegemony’ agenda. Much like the murderous professor Bill Ayers, who’s had a lifetime of activity shifting the narrative and the teaching hard left, and enjoying massive grant funding to help the shift along.
I too can name one objective journalist. He’s Thomas Buch-Andersen, and his reporting tears the media blinkers off the American public for three minutes and forty seven seconds today, simply showing in Obama’s own words how little he cares for ‘smart diplomacy’ when exactly one packaged sentiment for all occasions will do instead. Alas for American journalism, he’s a Dane and we’ll miss the speaking of truth to power that he might provide were he local.
Mr. Schulnik, come back after you’ve read “Left Turn” by UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose. Using U.S. voters as the center, the only two major news organizations that are right-of-center are Fox News and the Washington Examiner. And they’re not very far right. Every other major news organization leans left and some (e.g., the NY Times) are far left. Be aware that I’m talking about news, not commentary.
And the “Fox lies” liberal mantra is, I think, a canard. You may disagree with their take on an issue, but you would be hard pressed to document outright lies. Obama said, for example, that people who watch Fox hear repeatedly that he’s a Muslim; only problem – none of the Fox news or commentary folks have ever said it. So, who lies? Then there is the issue of bias – selective reporting of stories or facts within a story. Increasingly, we see stories that are exclusive to Fox that that the rest of the media either ignores or reluctantly picks up. On the other hand, it is rare to find a story in another outlet that isn’t reported by Fox.
Well, lefty idiot, you weren’t getting enough on the poor dead black kid threads, huh? We’re not paranoid; we know your leaders better than you do. You’re just some useful idiot that can be counted on to be one of the early casualties of the revolution. I and many others here were reading Saul Alinsky before it was cool. I knew who Bill Ayers and his whore were when they were with the Weathermen. I’ve read the Little Read Book and I know how Alinsky evolved from Trotsky and why Trotsky broke with Lenin over the bureaucratization of communism. If you know about that stuff, you won’t admit it because your persona is just one of those caring and sharing libruls. So, idiot, one day we’re going to have a serious disagreement, and I’m betting your leaders put you out there in the spear catching role.
Art, the nonsense you just posted is exactly what I meant by my comment at 12:25 and the one at 1:12 pm.
The Democrats aren’t Stalinists, you seem to forget who was in power in the US during some of the worst of the cold war.
There’s no revolution wanted or planned.
Obama isn’t Stalin, he’s not Trotsky, he’s not Lenin. He’s supporting capitalism the same as every president before him. He bailed out wall street for God’s sake (which might or might not have been the best move, but that’s quite the sacrifice for capitalism).
Obama’s policies are center right. Government employment is actually down. Other than the stimulus (you know, to save our capitalist system) government spending is down, and a big part of the stimulus was tax cuts.
Yes I know the Republican party has moved right, but just because the party has moved doesn’t make the old policies of Nixon, Reagan, John McCain and Mitt Romney socialism even when they’re implemented by Democrats. And none of those men were “useful idiots” and they weren’t planning a Trotskyist revolution.
Ok?
“Useful idiot” – nonsense
“revolution” – nonsense
“we’re not paranoids” – sadly, nonsense
If the police had done their job and investigated Zimmerman immediately and thoroughly, if the body had been handled properly instead of sitting 3 days in the morgue then this story wouldn’t have legs.
Black people are going nuts because they think this story means that it isn’t a crime to shoot an unarmed black teen.
All the uproar on the other side can be broken in parts:
1) of course there are the racists who will take the side of someone shooting a black man any day and every day
2) there are butthurt conservatives who think that black people have no right to ever speak up about anything
3) there are people who don’t care about blacks but sure worry that they won’t be able to shoot other people in the streets. I have a hard time distinguishing “conservatives” who want to be able to shoot anyone who bugs them from gang members who will shoot you for looking at them sideways.
This is complicated by the question “was it right for Zimmerman to follow a boy in his truck, see that the boy was doing nothing, and still approach him on the street, armed…” He certainly had the RIGHT to do it, but it’s not WISE for him to patrol that way when he’s not dressed as a policeman or security guard. I’ve lived in bad neighborhoods, but I never would have thought that having neighbors patrolling with guns would have been necessary. If there were, I’d think that they should wear uniforms of some sort so that people know who they are. If you’re approaching strangers, people should know why.
And yes the possibility (and possible witness) that Martin attacked first complicates the case.
To points 1 and 2 you should add consideration that the likes of Sharpton and the Black Panthers are always always always looking for an issue to make them relevant, and which they can use to toss out the race card. The Panthers have now advocated lynching Zimmerman, and Spike Lee has tweeted his home address. There’s incitement to murder in there, something Sharpton does have a history with.
Your points 1 and 2 give away your bias here — there have been no conservatives fitting your description in either point, with regard to this story. And actually your third point is outright garbage.
I didn’t know about the Panthers and Spike Lee. Ouch!
But I think that Sharpton goes to my point 2. I think he has a mixed history, but he means well and like it or not, a lot of people trust him.
I think at least half of the people who complain about Sharpton would equally complain if organizing to put pressure on the police, on the legislature etc was done by unknown people on facebook, and with rallies with all new people no one had heard of.
Sharpton means well? If causing mischief and inciting people “means well” then you need a new moral compass.
Interesting details I read in the police report run in the Miami Herald:
Martin family’s lawyer has had Tayvon’s school records sealed.
Tayvon’s father said he had Tayvon come visit him during his week’s suspension from school “to help him get his priorities straight.” (That doesn’t sound like tardiness to class. Additionally, no school I’ve ever heard of gave even 3 days of out of school suspension for anything less than a bad fight, drugs or weapons).
Tayvon’s girlfriend who was talking with him on the phone told police it was NOT Tayvon’s voice she heard screaming for help.That matches the witness’s statement.
Arresting Zimmermann without more conclusive evidence would be setting a very dangerous precedent that you are guilty until proven innocent if you’re involved in a situation that leads to the death of a Black.
Hopefully the police will do a good job with this investigation. I know I don’t like Zimmermann’s looks, but we must follow our rule of law. He should not be arrested until the police find evidence that does not jive with the statements made by the girlfriend and the witness. It is very possible that two unsavory characters got in an altercation, and the one with the gun won.
Whatever this is, it is NOT a White on Black crime.
Whatever truth emerges, Sharpton and our unpresidential Prez should shut up. Obama is shameless. Guess this is another situation where ” the police acted stupidly” where a Black is involved.
Update to the above comment I put on another thread: that more recent photo Trayvon put on Facebook indicates he’s a gangster or a gangster wannabe. The words that appear with his self-posted picture refer to a very offensive gangster rap song.
“But I think that Sharpton goes to my point 2. I think he has a mixed history, but he means well and like it or not, a lot of people trust him.”
Sharpton is the reincarnation of a Klan leader. That he’s “trusted” just means there are a lot of people dumber than rocks — or that his history has been suitably covered up by the press.
Actually, Bryan, both of his posts were outright garbage. Fox News is not “right wing media”; it is the only non-liberal mainstream media outlet. The commenter gives no examples of the “lies” on Fox News, but I’ll be willing to bet that his examples are the opinions of one of the conservative hosts on Fox that differ from his own obvious biases – not from a news anchor. If he doesn’t like Fox News, there are other buttons available on the remote that will connect him to CBS/NBS/ABS,CNNBS/MSNBS/PBS or HBO, if he’s willing to pay for his talking point sandwich. To a real Marxist, everyone else is “right wing”!
There we go, an example of ubiquitous dishonest labeling.
“CBS/NBS/ABS,CNNBS/MSNBS/PBS and HBO” are all “Marxist”?
This abuse of the English language is intellectual and civic poison. I think it’s even dangerous.
But it’s the accepted norm now. Actual enmity and lying rather than honest politics and debate are the norm, top to bottom, from the voters to the journalists to the politicians.
Hyperbolic misrepresentations of policies convince people that the Democrats are “totalitarians”, but I see danger too. I see actual danger in ubiquity of the hysteria that accepting hyperbolic lies creates.
I get it, people lie this way because they feel desperate. They feel like they’re losing, but not every method that can be used to win is worth the eventual cost.
David is a Troll, read his past post & ignore
I’ve made an involved argument about this topic and you just call me a troll? You’re the one trolling!
Also, if you were capable of arguing you would have. But then it is precisely shallowness and manipulative dishonesty that I’m arguing against and it looks like shallow, manipulative dishonesty is your only trick.
– Troll patrol?
I notice you in every darn post on PJ drooling “concern troll” whenever you disagree with someone and you don’t have an argument. You just accuse them of being an ideological enemy.
Give it a rest, get a new hobby. Grow up.
– to you.
trying to do no more than get to people is the offical definition of a troll
David is a Troll. Read his past post & ignore
I also recognize your technique of posting the same shallow totally incorrect stuff after every post you can’t answer.
Usually you say nothing but “Why are you lying?” over and over and over to people who aren’t lying. What’s that other name you post those under?
You should quiet down and let more intelligent people debate.
– to earlier blogs by Bryon Preston, you defined yourself because you taunted him:
“If the police had done their job and investigated Zimmerman immediately and thoroughly, if the body had been handled properly instead of sitting 3 days in the morgue then this story wouldn’t have legs.”
The police did investigate immediately and thoroughly, that’s why Zimmerman was free to go.
Are you under the impression this witness came forward recently?
“Black people are going nuts because they think this story means that it isn’t a crime to shoot an unarmed black teen.”
Of course the fact is that, under certain circumstances, it isn’t a crime to shoot an unarmed black teen. Or an unarmed white teen, or an unarmed purple teen.
The objection I and others have to this circus is that too many people have decided that because Trayvon Martin is black his killing was a crime. A body is not sufficient evidence that a murder has been committed.
We don’t need evidence, provided that our mass media tell us what and how to think.
During Alice’s visit to Wonderland, she attended a trial. The queen demanded, “sentence first, trial later.” We can do even better!
The problem with all these REFLEXIVE reactions is that people are ignoring every other act of violence around the nation and pretending this one incident exists in a vacuum and represents all the issues they want to impose.
It is an utterly irresponsible TRICK, along with the absurdity of claiming to KNOW what transpired, without any of them witnessing the event, or having the intelligence to wait until the facts are checked by investigators.
This is the “textbook” technique of the demagogues.
The headline of that article is deceptive.
It does not provide any quote from the witness that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
All that is quoted is that at the first point the witness saw them Martin was on top and Zimmerman was asking for help and that at the second time the witness saw them Martin was laying on the grass and was likely dead.
There is nothing about who started it, who was in actual danger, or how much injury either had inflicted on the other.
I have to say, while I disagree with David Schulnik in part, I also in part agree with him. This whole thing was provoked by the fact that the Sanford cops didn’t really investigate at all. No forensics at the scene at all, as far as I understand: no testing of blood samples on the clothing or ground, no analysis of gunshot residue, and no critical examination of the crime scene or anything. Zimmerman said that he was attacked by this kid while he was out of his truck trying to read a street sign, according to what I’ve read; none of the cops thought to ask why he (Zimmerman) was several hundred feet away from the truck when attacked. It was raining; wouldn’t you drive the truck closer to the sign, before getting out? The cops were so lazy that they failed to identify the body for 3 days. None of the conservatives I’ve heard have brought that up, in discussing this; everyone’s focused on how following someone in a truck, stopping and getting out, confronting them, and ultimately shooting them, could somehow become self-defense. The cops screwed up badly, that’s the first point to be made here. Maybe Zimmerman was justified in doing what he did, but the police weren’t justified in just taking his word for it, cursorily doing a sloppy investigation, and then sending the body to the morgue with no further effort to find the young man’s relatives.
Second, interesting point I saw last night on HuffPo, pretty much completely ignored everywhere else. They tracked down the two Republican legislators who wrote the initial “Stand Your Ground” law and asked them about this incident. They both said the same thing: following a person around in a truck, and then getting out of it, armed, isn’t “Standing Your Ground.” It’s paramount to stalking, frankly, unless the individual can be shown to have done something illegal, and so far none of the allegations in that regard have turned out to be even sort of true. He did “belong” in the neighborhood (his dad’s girlfriend lives there, and he was staying with her), his reason for being on the street was legitimate (he went to the store to buy some snacks) and his story checks out (he had the snacks on him when he was killed). He was on his cellphone (the one the cops ignored) when he first saw Zimmerman following him, and told her that someone strange was following him, and that he was afraid of the guy.
I think it likely that both Zimmerman and Martin thought each other up to no good. It seems likely that Zimmerman suspected Martin of doing something he wasn’t doing, and Martin thought Zimmerman was going to attack him. Zimmerman’s zeal to catch the “criminal” led to a confrontation, and Martin wound up dead. In a previous post I quoted Spiderman, and I will again: “With great power comes great responsibility.” If you’re going to carry a gun, you have to be prepared to use it, but you also have to be responsible, more so than the average individual, because it can *kill* someone much more easily than you can with your fists. When you are a kid and you ride a bike, you just do so with the supervision of your parents. If you run a red light, you get hit by a car and killed. When you get old enough to drive, they don’t just let you do it; you need a license now, because you’re doing something more dangerous, for you and those around you. If you run a red light in your car, the chances are much better of someone *else* being killed, in addition to yourself; so society places a greater burden on you, makes or attempts to make you act more responsibly.
I’ll say it again: Zimmerman may or may not be guilty legally of doing something wrong, but he’s definitely an idiot whose actions resulted in the death of someone else. My wife has a bumper sticker on her car: “Stupidity should be painful.” Yeah…
Those legislators didn’t write their law correctly then, because it says what Zimmerman did was fine. And it should be fine.
People have no obligation to retreat and may employ lethal force to protect themselves when they are out and about in public doing what they have a right to do.
What you are complaining of if synonymous with claiming neighborhood watches have no right to exist. That no one should ever involve themselves by intervening in what they think may be a crime, even by observing and asking questions.
I’m sure Kitty Genovese agrees with you. Oh wait. No one got involved there.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away. If anyone gets involved enough to call.
I suppose you are fine with that.
” IS synonymous”
I hate autocorrect.
Would you say that you want the ability to shoot anyone who threatens you anywhere, even if the threat isn’t necessarily deadly?
Should there be no bar that a threat has to reach before you can kill in response?
Except that the threat was deadly. There is a reason the English language contains the phrase “beaten to death.”
Martin attacked Zimmerman. The only 3rd party eye-witness says Martin was beating Zimmerman as if to death. This is backed up by Zimmerman’s stained clothing and broken nose.
Martin sailed right over the line that needs to be crossed for letha self defense to be AOK.
Are you telling me that they’re misinterpreting their own law? If you are, you’re now in the category of the judges who tell that Blakely guy (who was the staffer who wrote the asset seizure law of the ’70s) that his interpretation of the law he *WROTE* is incorrect if he thinks that it prohibits the seizing of property from political protesters who break the law to object to legislation they don’t like. Judges used the law against anti-abortion protesters; the person who drafted the bill says it was written strictly to apply to mobsters, and that Kennedy et al wouldn’t have signed onto it if they thought political groups could be targeted. Never mind, say the judges, our opinion of what the law means is more important than the assertions of the person who wrote the law. And here you are, telling us that the guys who drafted the law didn’t know what they meant when they wrote it…
Tinfoil hats, anyone?
They didn’t write a law which criminalized self defense during neighborhood watch activities, so draw your own conclusion.
“This whole thing was provoked by the fact that the Sanford cops didn’t really investigate at all.”
And you know this because the liars in the press told you it was so.
It’s sad that you bought the lie.
Where’s your proof that there *was* any investigation? Just because something is in the media doesn’t mean it’s a “lie.” By that standard, Travon Martin might not be dead, heck, maybe he killed George Zimmerman and is in hiding somewhere!
The *FACT* that Travon Martin was *talking on his cellphone* to his girlfriend when Zimmerman first started to follow him, and the *FACT* that the police failed to contact the family for THREE DAYS afterwards pretty much gives lie to the assertion they conducted a thorough investigation. Even if Martin was a hardened criminal, repeat offender, whatever, wouldn’t it make sense to contact his family, talk to those who knew him, check out his neighbors and friends? If he was a burglar, checking his house in a timely fashion might discover…you know…evidence that he’d actually done something wrong. So the cops would have…wait for it…proof he’d done something wrong, or at least was planning to do something wrong. They didn’t bother, they just goofed off and let it slide, and Zimmerman walked.
I remain convinced that Zimmerman wrongly thought Martin a criminal, based on paranoia and who knows what, and that he stalked him, stupidly, and wound up in a physical confrontation with him. There’s been ample discussion of the kid’s physique and the fact that most of the pictures of him aren’t recent; apparently he was tall, but as boys often do he shot up but hadn’t filled out yet. I was 5’10″ when I was 15, but I weighed 150. I’m the same height now, but *cough* more than a hundred pounds heavier. Martin supposedly weighed 140 or so. Zimmerman outweighed him considerably. Now does that mean that Zimmerman couldn’t have lost a fight to him? Of course not. However, my original point still stands: why confront the kid, and start a fight? The story that the kid attacked him unprovoked doesn’t wash, because the whole thing happened several hundred feet from Zimmerman’s truck. For whatever reason he followed the kid on foot, and they got into a scuffle, which resulted in Zimmerman shooting Martin. How is following someone into an alley, armed, “standing your ground?” That’s the part no one has been able to explain to me, adequately.
“I remain convinced that Zimmerman wrongly thought Martin a criminal, based on paranoia and who knows what, and that he stalked him, stupidly, and wound up in a physical confrontation with him.”
Based on the report that several hundred crimes were reported in the neighborhood, I’d think Zimmerman had reason to watch for and keep an eye on suspicious persons. Martin certainly wasn’t trying hard not look like thug. Martin may well have thought Zimmerman was about to attack him, but he guessed wrong, didn’t he?
There is no reason for Zimmerman not to have walked, there in no trace of any evidence of anything other than self defense on the part of Zimmerman.
What I find fascinating here is the enormous efforts everyone goes to in order to exonerate Zimmerman, based on his actions and what supposedly happened to him. It’s all of it an enormous stretch, for instance the characterisation that Martin “dressed like a thug.” The last I heard, “fashion police” was a sarcastic reference to Joan Rivers and those of her ilk, bemoaning celebrity outfits on a red carpet somewhere. Now we’re going to justify shooting someone because of *how they’re dressed*?!?
But there’s another issue. Martin seems to have faded into the background here, assumed to be a thug (apparently because he was black, though I’d hope you people would have better judgment than that), so of course it’s open season on him. There’s absolutely no evidence he’d done anything criminal, or was planning anything criminal. The only evidence we have that he was even doing anything suspicious is Zimmerman’s assertion that he thought the guy was up to no good, and might be on drugs. Zimmerman’s not a trained observer or anything; he’s in the neighborhood watch. So, Martin’s walking home, by himself, from the store. He’s talking on a cell phone, and he notices someone following him in a truck. At some point the truck stops and the guy gets out, and somehow there’s a confrontation. Martin winds up dead.
Now I’m sure you all can work up a number of scenarios where this situation evolved in a fashion wherein Zimmerman is, at least in your eyes, completely exonerated. What’s fascinating to me is that no one seems able to admit that Zimmerman might be at fault somehow, either on moral or even legal grounds. There’s *one* eyewitness, who supposedly saw part of the fight from a considerable distance, at night, in the rain. Cops famously will tell you that eyewitnesses are unreliable, in the best of circumstances, and this wasn’t the optimum situation by any stretch of the imagination. That’s why the police should collect evidence and do a thorough investigation; since they apparently didn’t, we’re stuck guessing.
What fascinates me is the persistence of the people who in the first place jumped to the conclusion Zimmerman was guilty of something, and that the police didn’t do their job in not arresting him–and in the face of the emerging evidence that Zimmerman is guilty of nothing, just as the police said to themselves that night, still jump to that conclusion when it becomes clear the police had at that time plenty of evidence to conclude the shooting was self defense by Zimmerman.
You people manage to make a tragedy a farce.
“There’s absolutely no evidence he’d done anything criminal, or was planning anything criminal.”
The evidence is he jumped Zimmerman without Zimmerman attacking him. That’s an assault and an attempted felony, if not a felony. That and context of the assault while Zimmerman was on the ground ground makes the shooting of Martin AOK.
“The only evidence we have that he was even doing anything suspicious is Zimmerman’s assertion that he thought the guy was up to no good, and might be on drugs. Zimmerman’s not a trained observer or anything; he’s in the neighborhood watch.”
Which activity you are attempting to criminalize. That activity reasonably includes noting who stands out as a likely criminal. No sale.
“What’s fascinating to me is that no one seems able to admit that Zimmerman might be at fault somehow, either on moral or even legal grounds.”
If as it appears on the basis of all evidence and testimony, with no evidence to the contrary, that Martin jumped Zimmerman without Zimmerman even first finding Martin, then Zimmerman is not at fault. You are the one hypothesizing non-existent evidence which creates culpability on the part of Zimmerman.
“Cops famously will tell you that eyewitnesses are unreliable, in the best of circumstances, and this wasn’t the optimum situation by any stretch of the imagination. That’s why the police should collect evidence and do a thorough investigation; since they apparently didn’t, we’re stuck guessing.”
Right. You’re giving credence to the testimony of people who only heard one side of what was going on as to what they only heard, who have given contradictory statements even inside of the time frame of the first few days, and claiming the one person who actually saw the assault is the unreliable one (it wasn’t so rainy he couldn’t see the color of the clothing or hear who was screaming, it was Zimmerman on his back being pounded at that time). Zimmerman has corresponding injuries and stains to his clothes, the timeline on the calls is tight enough it’s clear what happened.
Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman saved his own life from a clearly lethal threat of being beaten to death by Martin, he shot Martin dead. The police new this within hours of being on the scene. They should and did let Zimmerman walk.
Even if Zimmerman was mistaken about Martin being out looking for victims.
Only in the fevered dreams of deh liberals is it always true that nuance and context always mean a lethal shooting means a crime has taken place.
“However, my original point still stands: why confront the kid, and start a fight?”
What makes you presume Zimmerman threw the first punch?
Interesting how the inverse of this situation, thousands of times a year, never gets the slightest nod from the pimps, political whores, and Mushroom Media.
Mssrs Holder et all are the real cowards on race. Blacks are far more likely to be victims from black criminals than vice versa.
The Left and the black hustlers of the Left seem to want nothing better than a race war – as if this will get them anywhere but dead – the Left is a suicide cult- masquerading as a higher consciousness – belied however by the rhetoric of hate – the coming war will be very uncivil – thank you Barack Whatever.
Some more points that aren’t getting enough attention:
1) As I keep saying the reason for the national concern is that Zimmerman wasn’t charged for such a long time. Most posters on PJ prefer to grouse about race than face this…
But two more things
2) Zimmerman probably lied to the police. He told them that he only got out of the car to read a street sign. That doesn’t match the 9/11 call.
3) Even though he’s lying about why he confronted Martin, he may still have a self defense defense. He’s now saying that Martin broke his nose, and that he hurt the back of his head.
So Zimmerman was probably foolish and he lied to police. He may be innocent or at least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the claim of injuries holds up.
Note Zimmerman’s lawyer:
1) says he hasn’t actually talked to Zimmerman (why?)
2) says the defense will be simple “self defense” not “stand your ground”
…
Does this case suggest that neighborhood watch needs to be done differently?
Does it suggest that the law should be changed so that neighborhood watch doesn’t create this sort of situation?
Does it suggest that police procedures should be different?
Does it suggest that neighborhood watch should be replaced with trained guards
Does it suggest that neighborhood watch should be replaced with trained guards?
I don’t think that individuals who take on neighborhood patrols on their own volition, without any organization, deserve being called the ‘neighborhood watch’. A burglar casing the block fits that description just as well.
They were organized.
I read an article saying that some other neighbors involved thought Zimmerman had too gungho an attitude, taking his gun with him to meetings and calling the rest of them pussies or something.
And I read an article saying his neighbors appreciated his work.
Mine trumps yours, because I’m going to give its URL:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/21/10791755-neighbor-comes-to-defense-of-trayvon-martins-shooter
1) Why should he be charged with anything when all available evidence points to self defense, with no trace of any evidence to the contrary?
2) Which does not change the facts of the shooting, and may even have been true at the time.
3) There is no evidence he was lying about that, and the injuries Mratin caused him were known to the police at the time.
“So Zimmerman was probably foolish and he lied to police.”
No, he said why he got out of the car at the time he got out of the car. It is wishful thinking on your part to think his getting out of the car to see a street sign better contradicts other facts.
His injuries were documented by the police at the time. They don;t have to “hold up” it’s a fact. Unless a really huge conspiracy theory got inside your tinfoil hat.
“1) says he hasn’t actually talked to Zimmerman (why?)”
Who cares why? What does it change of the known facts?
“says the defense will be simple “self defense” not “stand your ground””
The two are synonymous.
“Does this case suggest that neighborhood watch needs to be done differently?”
It may be wise, but there are no grounds for a change in the law to demand such.
“Does it suggest that the law should be changed so that neighborhood watch doesn’t create this sort of situation?”
Abjectly not. There is no distinction affecting self defense which should be drawn between keeping an eye out for trouble as an individual alone, or as an individual on a schedule with other persons.
“Does it suggest that police procedures should be different?”
What, always charge someone?
“Does it suggest that neighborhood watch should be replaced with trained guards”
Not as a thing mandated by government, it doesn’t. That called a tax. They already pay taxes, and to judge by the reported crime rate, they either aren’t getting their money’s worth out of the cops, or more can’t be afforded, or both.
About the update, I don’t know what the current Black Panther are but I read about their history in California.
They started out as Maoists who promoted themselves by promoting blacks arming themselves in black areas where the police were not providing protection. Then they started a school and some other such projects.
Then they became a murdering cocaine gang.
They were always a murderous cocaine gang. The rest was just cover to buy acceptability from useful idiots.
Since Zimmermann is Hispanic, it would, perhaps, be interesting to know where La Raza stands on all this. If they’re standing behind Zimmermann, the left trying to turn this into a racial thing could backfire on them badly.
Has anyone seen the recent photo Trayvon posted on Facebook? It speaks volumes. So does the very interesting fact that his family has only released photos that appear to be several years old. Kids can take wrong turns. I think Zimmermann has a “criminal-ish” look to him, but he should not be arrested just because Al Sharpton, our shameless President, and the evil Black Supremicist Panthers whip up a crowd and attempt to incite a riot for political gain. Obama and Sharpton should be charged with inciting a riot, and the police should investigate what Black Panther(s) posted Zimmermann’s address on a Wanted Dead or Alive poster and charge them with soliciting murder.
“A secret witness says Trayvon Martin did attack George Zimmerman”
No, he didn’t say such thing. He just said he saw two guys fighting, one guy was hollering for help, and that’s pretty much it.
At least according to that news report.
Sounds to me that you have the same problem most eyewitnesses have (which is why eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable), namely you’re seeing what you want to see, instead of what actually happened.
You again?
You gonna go for the NBPP’s reward?
The evidence of a “pursuit” is weak — mainly guessing and a desire to cast Zimmerman as the villain. It’s a press invention, and we should treat it as such.
The “Stand your Ground” theory of what happened is even more of a fabrication, based on the fact that it doesn’t fit the physical crime scene at all. I’ll grant you that the media is liberal, and that they concoct things all the time. That doesn’t mean that *anything* they report in this issue is completely fabricated, just because you don’t want to believe it. Oh, and the “Stand your ground” argument is also colored by the fact that some want to portray Martin as a criminal, based on nothing (no criminal record at all that’s been released, and no evidence whatsoever that he was engaged in or contemplating anything criminal that evening), in an attempt to exonerate Zimmerman.
“The “Stand your Ground” theory of what happened is even more of a fabrication, based on the fact that it doesn’t fit the physical crime scene at all.”
Pray tell, in what way doesn’t the crime scene of Martin’s assault on Zimmerman not fit the the theory of self defense by Zimmerman in shooting Martin?
Blame the Hoodie? Walking while black with a hoodie, punishable by death?? Have we come to this???
GIVE ME A BREAK. It was raining …. the kid was running …..and being stalked …….and ….SORRY, but we don’t ALL use Totes umbrellas when going to the corner grocery store for a snack. Nor should we risk losing our very lives while doing so! Mr. Rivera: you should be ashamed of your inane, insensitive comments about Trayvon, and your attempts to create “excuses” for the inexcusable actions of judge-jury-and-executioner George Zimmerman (and those that would imitate him). We are becoming a society that seeks and sees threats under every rock; a frightened society that sees danger with every “other” that is not just like us; a manipulated society with control-freaks running rampant (whether politicians or mayors or police chiefs or individuals). Power-hungry people that are only too eager to take advantage of our fears; that are only too willing to get away with anything and everything that they can, as they deprive us of our our liberty (and sometimes our lives)…..all in the name of defending it. What a shell game. But were it only a game. For it includes the worst provisions of the Patriot Act, the police spying on innocent people, “papers-please” and stop&frisk gone wild, the “right” to indefinitely detain Americans without trial, and out-of-control homicidal vigilantes such as we have tragically seen here. It’s a serious, slippery slope… one that ultimately leads to a police state/Orwellian mentality that is more typical of places such as China or Cuba – NOT the America that I know and love. We USED to stand proud and free, and contrasted our open society to such sorry places. Now we imitate them. Our country is better than this. Our values are better than this. WE are better than this. Don’t blame the hoodie……blame what we are becoming, and allowing, and doing as a society. As Shakespeare once said: the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves: For we have come to accept things that should NEVER be accepted by a freedom-loving people. It’s time… it’s way past time, to reverse course. Let bring some good out of this tragedy…. and never let it happen again.
“Walking while black with a hoodie, punishable by death?? Have we come to this???
GIVE ME A BREAK. It was raining …. the kid was running …..and being stalked …….and ….SORRY, but we don’t ALL use Totes umbrellas when going to the corner grocery store for a snack. Nor should we risk losing our very lives while doing so!”
What got Martin killed was his assaulting Zimmerman.
“Let bring some good out of this tragedy…. and never let it happen again.”
It will keep right on happening, because government is not competent to redesign human nature. And for now, it isn’t able.
Check out Jack L. Chalker’s dystopias in the Well World books for the hells that will happen when it can. And if we let it, it will happen frequently.
For all of you who say Murder, what are all of you going to do if it is found out that Trayvon (T) started the physical confrontation? The physical evidence shows Zimmerman (Z). had injuries to the back of his head, a broken nose and grass stains on his back. In the link a witness talks about how T was on top of Z punching him and Z was calling for help.
The secret, does not fit the narrative witness, is in this Feb. 27, 2012 report.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4
Also, there is as reason Z was suspicious of anyone who was not a known entity in that neighborhood. The following Miami Herald article, describes a quiet neighborhood that never had any issues that would cause anyone to question any stranger who was walking around at night.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html
From pg 2 of the above:
Police records, which show that 50 suspicious-person reports were called in to police in the past year at Twin Lakes. There were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting in the year prior to Trayvon’s death.
In all, police had been called to the 260-unit complex 402 times from Jan 1, 2011 to Feb. 26, 2012.
To those on the right who support the murder of the youngster, I have a question for you: Do you really believe you are going to Heaven? I mean, really? You truly believe God isn’t looking into your souls right now and will accept your support of the murderer? In cold blood? Of an unarmed kid? Your souls are open pits of hate and racism right now. God is watching you. God is watching you very carefully.
I always like it when people who are probably not religious at all lay a claim to religious authority. This is nothing more than guilt mongering and Alinskyite tactics. None of us know the facts of the case, and people on the left assume the police didn’t do their jobs (maybe true, maybe not). Characterizing this as a murder assumes facts not in evidence. I might add that the left fell off the moral high road when 1) they began exploiting this tragedy to promote their agenda, 2) the New Black Panthers circulated a “Wanted: Dead or Alive” poster for Zimmerman, 3) the New Black Panthers offered a reward for apprehension of Zimmerman (apprehension for what? He isn’t charged with anything.), and 4) Spike Lee made Zimmerman’s home address public. So please, mind your step as you dismount the soap box.
‘Obama’s policies are center right.’
That statement makes my brain hurt.
To whoever’s posting as “David Schulnik”: You say you’re not a troll, but you’re not very convincing. One of your problems is that you distort what people say within a few lines on the screen of what they’ve said. (Example: “‘CBS/NBS/ABS,CNNBS/MSNBS/PBS and HBO’ are all ‘Marxist’?” No one had even hinted at that.) Troll or not, that’s just plain stupid. The least you should do is make your distortions sufficiently “screen-distant” so your distortions and what you’re distorting can’t be seen at the same time. My vote: troll. A second vote: fool.
A third possibility, of course, is that you’re simply off your rocker — which is entirely possible for someone coming to these pages and trying to convince us that obama and his policies are center-right and that Al Sharpton means well. You might as well butt your head against a brick wall as do that.