Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

In busting Zimmerman myths, Jonathan Capehart perpetuates the greatest myth of all

In busting Zimmerman myths, Jonathan Capehart perpetuates the greatest myth of all

Zimmerman was not, in fact, in his vehicle at the time the police said “we don’t need you to do that”

Jonathan Capehart at The Washington Post writes of Five myths about the killing of Trayvon Martin (h/t Instapundit).

The first myth listed concerns alleged police instructions for Zimmerman not to leave his vehicle.  This is a fundamental myth in the case, and gives rise to a claim one hears constantly and to this day:  If only Zimmerman had not left his vehicle when police told him not to, this never would have happened.

That narrative is spun, incorrectly, into legal theories that Zimmerman must have been the aggressor because he left the car against police orders and followed Martin.

Here’s how Capehart frames the myth, and how he debunks the myth:

1. On the night of the shooting, the police ordered Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle.

“Are you following him?” the operator for the Sanford police’s non-emergency line asks Zimmerman. “Yeah,” he says. The dispatcher on the phone tells him: “We don’t need you to do that.”

Who the aggressor was that fateful night is the central — and most unanswerable — question of the case. Those who fault Zimmerman have latched on to this back-and-forth with Sean Noffke, the operator, as proof that Zimmerman defied a direct police order.

Not so. Noffke testified on the first day of the jury trial that it is dispatchers’ policy not to give orders to callers. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he explained. “We always try to give general basic . . . not commands, just suggestions.” So, “We don’t need you to do that” is different than a more direct “Don’t do that.”

Under cross-examination, Noffke added more context to his “suggestion” when asked whether his requests for updates on what Martin was doing encouraged Zimmerman to follow the unarmed 17-year-old. “It’s best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation,” Noffke said.

Capehart correctly debunks the myth that the police ordered Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

But in so doing, Capehart does not address the most important part of the myth — that Zimmerman was in his car at the time.  In so doing, Capehart assumes a fact which we know not to be true.

Zimmerman was not in the car at the time of the comment “we don’t need you to do that.”

Here’s the transcript of the call from Andrew Branca’s post at his blog addressing the call:

Zimmerman:  Shit, he’s running.

Dispatcher:  He’s running?  Which way is he running?

[Sound of car door opening.]

Zimmerman:  [Grunts.]  Down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood.

[Sound of car door closing.]

Dispatcher:  OK, and which entrance is that he’s heading towards.

Zimmerman:  The back entrance. . . .  [mutters] Fucking punks [puddles?].

[Wind/breathing noise.]

Dispatcher:  Are you following him?

Zimmerman:  Yeah.

Dispatcher:  OK, we don’t need you to do that.

Zimmerman:  OK.

On direct examination, the 911 operator acknowledged hearing the car door chime go off right after the “he’s running” statement by Zimmerman (at 3:15):

Here’s the cross-examination of the 911 operator, including his acknowledgement of hearing the door chiming (at 12:30) and that at the time of instruction there was wind noise from having cell phone outside the car (15:30).  The denial that there was an order not to follow appears at 14:00:

(More video and analysis of the 911 operator’s testimony at trial is here.)

This is important because it defeats a key narrative of the case, that Zimmerman was in his car at the time the police made the suggestion (not the direction) that “we don’t need you to do that.”

Capehart made a good faith attempt to debunk this myth, but in so doing, assumed the worst part of the myth.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

In “busting” myth no. 2. Capehart…at the very best…suggests that maybe Zimmerman’s nose wasn’t broken after all.

While recounting that everyone who saw him said it was, or his injuries were consistent with a broken nose.

That ain’t “busting” anything, except Capehart’s credibility.

    Physician’s Assistant Linzee Folgate testified under oath that GZs nose was most likely broken, based on his black eyes, nasal-labial swelling and bruising. No x-rays were taken but she said that her direct observation of GZ’s nose indicated it was broken.

    Visually, everyone has seen the GZ photo taken immediately after the shooting that displays blood dripping from his nose, a laceration high on the nose and a swollen and misshapen nose below the laceration.

    BrianMacker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    I came here specifically to point this out. The evidence is consistent with a broken nose, so no it is not a “myth”. It will only be a myth when evidence is provided that his nose was not broken. It was most likely broken.

    MegK in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    The argument among the ignorant is that his broken nose was never confirmed by x-ray. The reality is most broken noses are never confirmed by x-ray.

I hope MOM makes such points as these very simply to the jury in closing. Sorry to say, but six females, ‘instructed’ by a horsefaced schoolmarm type judge, are not going to be rigorous about the rational application of objective legal standards.

MOM must leave them nowhere to hide.

And he must enter the realm of emotion himself and personalize Zimm’s plight to this covey of emotocons.

After talking them thru their aversion to icky guns, he must put to them: if you were armed for self defense, and I broke your nose and MOUNTED you and beat you further, should YOU be on trial here today, judged by those such as yourselves, if you shot me for it?

    creeper in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Downrated for the reference to “six females” and “their aversion to icky guns”. I have news for you. Women can be every bit as objective as men can be. See the posts by various ladies here at LI. As for the “icky gun” reference, you’d better hope you never give me cause to fear for my life.

    Get a grip on your misogyny.

      bildung in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 11:08 am

      Maybe you’d better get a grip on statistical reality.

      I doubt the women who post here are representative of the pool from which this jury was drawn.

      Anecdotes aren’t evidence. I know some unmarried females who didn’t vote for Obama, therefore unmarried females generally didn’t actually go for Obama by a lopsided margin, right?

      Because I know some conservative women, therefore the historical effect of allowing women generally to vote has not been a sound shift leftward for the whole country, right?

      Sheesh, there’s every reason to be concerned about an all female jury ‘instructed’ by a leftbot female judge.

      Let’s just hope for a couple of courageous holdouts.

      And for the context challenged, I don’t think guns are ‘icky’, but most women do. Sarah Palin and the women who post here are not most women, unfortunately.

        stella dallas in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 12:57 pm

        So an all female jury has you concerned. Would you prefer an all Italian jury? Maybe an all Polish jury or all Jewish jury?

          Milwaukee in reply to stella dallas. | July 7, 2013 at 2:02 pm

          Yes. Women nurture, men protect. If those women identify with the mom who has lost her little baby, he is toast. If they have a man in their lives who has put himself in dangers way protecting them, George might have a chance.

          alysass in reply to stella dallas. | July 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm

          Isn’t it a “universal truth” that: Men think. Women feel. I’m also very concerned about an all-female jury…

          Harperman in reply to stella dallas. | July 7, 2013 at 3:07 pm

          Alysass says:
          “Isn’t it a “universal truth” that: Men think. Women feel.”

          Actually you have that wrong- Conservatives think. Liberals feel.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to stella dallas. | July 7, 2013 at 3:23 pm

          Allyass and Milwaukee are somewhat right, but Harperman’s declaration has a much fuller truth to it.

        gxm17 in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 2:39 pm

        bildung, I am a bleeding-heart, anti-gun, liberal woman. I am the stereotype you are complaining about. And yet the only thing the state’s case has done, in my eyes, is lead me to (now) believe that TM deliberately doubled back to confront GZ and give him a beat down. If I were on the jury, the defense could just rest at this point because the only thing the state has proved is that it has no case. And, FTR, I don’t think guns are “icky.” I have more of a love/hate relationship with them. People are more complex than the stereotypes we like to hang on them.

          creeper in reply to gxm17. | July 7, 2013 at 4:30 pm

          Welcome to LI, gxm17. I hope you come back often.

          fogflyer in reply to gxm17. | July 7, 2013 at 5:49 pm

          Thank you!
          You give us hope!
          Please tell me though, how did you arrive at these conclusions?
          Did you get your info from the main stream media? From watching the trial? From this forum?

          give this woman a slap on the back or at least a big hug.

          BrianMacker in reply to gxm17. | July 7, 2013 at 7:15 pm

          I don’t give slaps on the back and hugs for doing what one should expect of everyone.

          gxm17 in reply to gxm17. | July 7, 2013 at 7:17 pm

          The first tip-off was the media lies, claiming GZ was white then making up “white hispanic” to cover their butts, using an old mugshot of GZ, the doctored NEN tapes, the list goes on. Early on, I realized that this was going to be the Duke case all over again. Every piece of evidence that the race instigators have claimed is coming has never arrived. The FBI didn’t hear a racial epithet and determined this was not a hate crime. The bullet entered TM from the a frontal proximity, not in the back at a distance as the angry mob insisted the science would tell us. Every ludicrous theory that they have come up with gets shot down by evidence. The latest, that GZ’s broken nose was due to recoil would be laughable if it weren’t so pathological. I have waited patiently and watched the state present their case. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The people who have forced this sham of a trial should all be fired. You would think there would come a point when the light bulb would go off for these folks but the door to their minds is closed and they are simply unwilling to see the truth. Sad, sad, sad.

          I read the MSM but I fact check them. Also, I’m a crime junkie so I can find unvarnished info in my usual haunts. I’m glad to have found LI because it is the only place that I would be able to post the above rant and not get banned. And I have seriously wanted to rant about this trial, especially after watching the state try to fabricate a case out of thin air.

          Sopater in reply to gxm17. | July 8, 2013 at 2:51 pm

          Hi gxm17,
          You said that “[t]he people who have forced this sham of a trial should all be fired”. I take a more biblical perspective on this and wonder what a self-described “bleeding-heart liberal woman” would think. Deuteronomy 19:18-21 calls for one who has been found to falsely accuse his brother should have done to him what he had intended to have done to the one that he had accused. I would advocate for this in our justice system as a punishment for purgery or for any other testimony or accusations that are later found to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.

        as a female, I say your arguments are illogical.

        MegK in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 7:42 pm

        I’m a mom of three and perfectly capable of putting my sympathy (which I have in great measure for Trayvon’s family) aside and weighing the facts.

        In fact I can’t remember where I read this but apparently women on juries are more detail oriented in examining the evidence whereas men tend to form their opinions quickly and be less easily swayed by details. Can’t vouch for the statistical accuracy of this theory but it sounds about right to me. If true it bodes well for George.

        MKReagan in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 8:04 pm

        If you haven’t read Andrew’s post “Meet the Zimmerman Jurors” yet, it may improve your outlook for conviction. At least 3 jurors have guns in the home or family, one even had a CCW at one time. I believe 2 have gone to the range to shoot.

        https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/meet-the-zimmerman-trial-jurors/

          I’m thinking maybe the original poster, with his cartoonish stereotype of women who get freaked out at the mere mention of a gun, doesn’t know many actual females from the South. In Florida, with over a million CCW permits in circulation, even if a woman herself doesn’t have a gun, chances are she’s got a friend or family member who does.

          Women by definition “are not going to be rigorous about the rational application of objective legal standards”?

          Women — even in the state that’s #1 in concealed weapons permits issued — by definition need to be “talked through” (by a man, of course!) “their aversion to icky guns”?

          Sheesh.

      snopercod in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 11:57 am

      Would I be a misognyist as well to point out that 10 of the 12 O.J. jurors were women who apparently thought with their ovaries rather than their brains?

      • 28-year-old married black woman…
      • 24-year-old single black woman…
      • 50-year-old divorced black woman …
      • 32-year-old single Hispanic man…
      • 37-year-old married black woman…
      • 38-year-old single black woman….
      • 52-year-old divorced black woman…
      • 22-year-old single white woman…
      • 43-year-old married black man…
      • 60-year-old divorced white woman …
      • 44-year-old single black woman…
      • 71-year-old married black woman…

        I watched O.J. gavel to gavel. The prosecution was lousy and the DNA lab was sloppy.

        I thought the jury got it right. What ever the truth (I’m convinced these days he was guilty) the jury came to the same conclusion I did based on the court case.

          Cracker-American in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 12:36 pm

          Its unfortunate so few people are familiar with the EVIDENCE presented to the jury that invoked reasonable doubt. We are facing a similar situation w/ GZ vs TM
          the jury will be vilified, as Paula Deen Fans, once Z is adjudicated “not proven”

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 1:35 pm

          Cracker, luv your nic. (belly laughing):)

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 1:38 pm

          But, Cracker, you’re wrong about the OJ trial. Gil Garcetti screwed the pooch when he moved it from Brentwood to the ghetto. Ain’t nobody in dat jury pool gonna convict wonna dey heroes.

          PersonFromPorlock in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 2:44 pm

          I caught the OJ trial mostly in a blue-collar bar in a Maine mill town. The most memorable moment for me was towards the end, when one of the bearded denizens remarked “You know, I’m beginning to think the ni–er didn’t do it.”

          Bruce Hayden in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 4:31 pm

          Not sure of the guilt, but pretty confident that the state screwed up from day 1 making their case. Read a book a couple years later by some of the black jurors, where they explained their reasonable doubts. Much of it was that the police, crime lab, etc., were just not credible. And they explained why. Couldn’t fault them. I began to question the state’s case when I found out that Mark Furhman had gone over the wall at OJ’s house, supposedly to warn those living there. And just happened to find important evidence there. The story they gave was just not credible – why send 4 detectives to do this, when a uniformed officer could have been radio dispatched? All that evidence should have suppressed, and how can you believe detectives who would start out the investigation by searching OJ’s house and grounds without a warrant?

          As to guilt, my Crim Law prof was one of the top defense attorneys in town – have seen him as a talking head on CNN, FNC, etc. he pointed out that in all the murder trials he had tried, there were crimes of passion and crimes of premeditation. The crimes of passion were the bloody ones. The premeditated ones almost never were very bloody. Yet, you had something here where there was blood all over the place, done apparently with a lot of violence, and likely emotion. Yet, OJ would have had to have used a great amount of premeditation to pull it off, requiring pretty good timing. Reinforcing this, this is the same guy who walked into a casino in Las Vegas with a gun to steal back some of the stuff he lost in litigation. Start with the fact that everyone knows that you can’t take guns into casinos there, and capping it with doing so in the place in the country with probably the best video surveillance. And that is the guy who was supposed to have planned out those murders so thoroughly?

          Finally, as to the LA DA – met a good friend of his on a plane a year or two after the verdict. The DA apparently told him that he had a group of Black leaders meet him in his office, where he was told that if OJ were convicted by a white jury, LA would burn. So, he moved the trial, and knew it was probably lost. He selected a woman and a black to try the case in order to bond with the expected black female jurors. But notably, they weren’t his first team, which probably would have tried the case if it hadn’t been moved. It was essentially a Hail Mary, expecting to lose the trial once he moved it downtown.

          Yukio Ngaby in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 6:29 pm

          @ JackRussellTerrierist

          I don’t know what your definition of ghetto is, but downtown L.A. being ghetto, especially in the ’90s, is a stretch.

          And you do you think you can make it through a thread on the subject of race without using the ridiculous black eye dialect?

          Thought not.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 6:58 pm

          Yuk, I lived in L.A. at the time of the trial. I know the jury pool.

          I also know their speech pattern. 🙂

          If you can’t handle the truth, go somewhere else.

          Yukio Ngaby in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 8:10 pm

          @ JackRussellTerrierist

          I was born and raised in L.A. I lived there for 33 years including the years of the OJ trial. And if you think downtown L.A. is a ghetto… well, then it’s a good thing you didn’t go to USC or visit the Watts towers, I guess.

          And your silly eye dialect is only that– silly.

          And what’s the truth that I can’t handle?

          Oh wait, is it that you’re a bigot based on numerous things you’ve said in the comment section of this post alone?

          Little gems such as “The black kids are feral savages born of feral savages” or “Ain’t nobody in dat jury pool gonna convict wonna dey heroes.” or “black women despise white woem because that’s what black men want, by and large. The fact that white women who succumb to such relationships have an extremely high likelihood of being murdered, severely beaten, living in poverty for the rest of their lives or struck down by AIDS doesn’t seem to slow miscegenation.”

          Oh yes, if only we could stop the mixing of races and keep the breed clean so that murder, spousal abuse, poverty, and AIDS were only black problems. If only white women wouldn’t “succumb”… Geez.

          But don’t worry. I can handle that. I’ve handled the pro-Kwanzaa bigots and I can certainly handle you.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 11:46 pm

          Yuk, I’m shaking in my boots. Next thing is, you’ll be calling me the dreaded “R” word…..RACIST!! RACIST!! 🙂 I couldn’t care less about what you or anyone else calls me, so get over yourself.

          Garcetti moved the trial in order to get a black jury. The result speaks for itself.

          If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them. If you don’t think black culture in America is a swirling cesspool of savage violence and immorality, fine. I do. If you think black culture’s bastardization of our language is a good thing and doesn’t contribute to their failures, fine. I don’t.

          Yukio Ngaby in reply to MSimon. | July 8, 2013 at 9:45 am

          @ JackRussellTerrierist

          You seem to have proven yourself a racist– and not the modern Leftist low expectations/mascot sort. No. You’re a throwback to the 1930s and Stormfront moaning about the lack of racial purity (you’re white women that marry blacks get AIDS/murdered/poverty/beaten schtick) and spending your time being afraid and dehumanizing blacks (“The black kids are feral savages born of feral savages” etc.). I guess we can now add another gem to your displayed bigotry: “If you don’t think black culture in America is a swirling cesspool of savage violence and immorality, fine. I do.”

          Do you want to start saying anything about the Jews while you’re here? Jacobson wrote a post about the demonization of Jews and Israel by the Palestinians yesterday. You’re certainly exhibiting the same sort of tactics and demonstrating the same mindset as the Palestinian terrorist groups. Congrats!

          And you don’t write posts. You write comments.

          Your comments make me and most conservatives who believe in individual liberty and responsibility cringe. But don’t worry– your bigoted views aren’t shared by the majority of Americans, nor the majority of conservatives.

          But wallow in your own ignorance. It’s entertaining in a pathetic trainwreck kind of way. And it’s good to keep remind people that there still are throwback bigots such as yourself out there and conservatives would be well served to distance themselves from people who hold these ignorant beliefs.

        creeper in reply to snopercod. | July 7, 2013 at 12:36 pm

        Would I be sexist if I pointed out the fact that the majority of the prosecution team that screwed up their case was male?

        Give it a rest already.

          snopercod in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 1:19 pm

          Boy, there sure are a lot of overly-sensitive females on this thread. Would your definition of an all-male prosecution team include special prosecutor Angela Corey?

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 1:47 pm

          But the significant fact, in the context of this little set-to you’re having here, is that Marcia Clark was the lead deputy DA. There was no doubt she was running the show …… and SHE wore a skirt to trial every day.

          BTW, she was on one of the Trademark discussion shows with other lawyers about two nights ago. She thinks the State has proven its case and GZ is guilty.

          Her problem is her bias and need for attention. Those are both emotional matters, not matters of logic. I’ll never forget the day she wore a flaring skirt to court during OJ and damn near did a full pirouette in the courtroom (she took dance as a hobby). I about gagged.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to snopercod. | July 7, 2013 at 1:53 pm

        Nine of the jurors were black. Two were single white owmen and on Hispanic man. This was a strictly a race-based verdict garnered by intimidation by the glut of black jurors.

        Even though the ALL the attorneys involved AND the judge contributed to the circus atmosphere, there was plenty of evidence to convict. PLENTY.

        Gil Garcetti lost this case before the trial ever started by moving it from Brentwood to South Central L.A..

        Milwaukee in reply to snopercod. | July 7, 2013 at 2:06 pm

        Overwhelming majority of the jury pool thought he didn’t do it because he was an NFL star. The prosecution thought women would be sympathetic to an abusive ex-husband. In general, Black women really don’t care for White women who marry Black men, especially as Nicole was his second wife, the first being a Black woman. Yes, emotions were in play. Yes the prosecution screwed up.

        That glove that took so long to get on? It came off in a flash.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Milwaukee. | July 7, 2013 at 2:54 pm

          The main factor in play was anti-white racism and intimidation from an almost all-black jury intent on poking their collective finger in whitey’s eye by letting a black man walk free for murdering two white people in cold blood. But yes, black women despise white woem because that’s what black men want, by and large. The fact that white women who succumb to such relationships have an extremely high likelihood of being murdered, severely beaten, living in poverty for the rest of their lives or struck down by AIDS doesn’t seem to slow miscegenation. We’re even seeing it on TV commercials and advertising of all kinds now. The media and entertainment industry are pushing for this, and all it’s going to do is make for more heartache, misery and racial animosity.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 12:08 pm

      Creeper, this woman does not think Bildung is being misogynistic. He’s just saying some really hard things without sugar coating. He’s also right. A lot of women operate on emotion rather than logic. Guns make some women feel “uncomfortable”. MOM will have to blend reason and emotion to reach the jury. If he hands them only logic, Zimmerman goes to jail. So, MOM, has to make the jury “feel” and bring themselves, mentally, to react the way GZ did. They’ve got to see themselves as GZ and TM as the abusive boyfriend. MOM has to paint pictures in their head then use logic to bring home the point.

        creeper in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 7, 2013 at 12:47 pm

        I took exception to the “icky guns” reference. That is hardly a “spare, unemotional” descriptor, as you claim. Are we reading the same comments?

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm

          We recently moved from deep-blue CA to eastern gun-totin’ TN. Two of the three closest female friends I’ve made here think guns are icky. I gently argue with them about it somewhat frequently. These are tough, hard-working Tennessee women living in the country. Two are native southerners. Fortunately for my husband, his new men friends, their husbands, do not thinks guns are icky. We, including me, are armed to the teeth out here. 🙂

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm

          BTW, the whole “icky guns” thing doesn’t offend me in the slightest. I know exactly the kind of women he’s speaking about. Just because you and I aren’t among the group doesn’t mean they don’t exist – they most certainly do – and some may be on this jury.

          That’s just a fact, so put on your big girl panties and deal with the truth, not what you want the truth to be or just what it is for you. Fact: Some of our sisters are cry-baby wimps. The poster was speaking broadly, pardon the pun.

    txantimedia in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 9:58 am

    Um, several of the jurors are familiar with guns, and some have shot them. And while woman tend to be more emotional than men, their ability to be objective is unquestioned. The only thing women cannot do that men can do is equal them in strength and endurance, with statistically insignificant exceptions.

    As creeper pointed out, your misogyny is showing.

      bildung in reply to txantimedia. | July 7, 2013 at 11:16 am

      Well its not unquestioned, because I am questioning it.

      I don’t think much research supports the notion that the only difference between the sexes is physical strength and endurance.

      That’s pure sixties lefty wishcasting right there. Its completely absurd.

      gxm17 in reply to txantimedia. | July 7, 2013 at 2:31 pm

      I like your comment but don’t agree about the “statistically insignificant” exceptions. IMO, ultramarathons are an ultimate endurance sport and not only do women compete shoulder to shoulder with men, they have also been known to beat them. Probably why the sport isn’t very well known or popular.

        V.McCann in reply to gxm17. | July 7, 2013 at 4:00 pm

        It’s more likely because they’re incredibly boring and appeal to a very limited audience.

        I gave the thumbs up, but I disagree because ultramarathon is an exception. There are millions upon millions of women who do not compete in marathons because we do not have what is required.

        The thing about strength is more than just running marathons. It is a lot of things where women simply do not have the same strength as men. On the other hand, there are exceptions to the rule, and once women commence working in male dominated roles, they have proved that they can do the job just as well as a man.

        As a woman, I can assure you that I do not have the same strength as my husband. This could be a part of my conditioning.

        The point I want to make is simply that we cannot place people in the one basket. Some women perform outside of the norm.

          Harperman in reply to Aussie. | July 7, 2013 at 7:11 pm

          My mother raised six boys. She was the most intelligent and logical person I have ever known. Maybe that’s why I never found the right woman. None of them could stack up.
          Still Mom always said that is was BS that men and women think differently. They just start from different positions with different priorities.

          gxm17 in reply to Aussie. | July 7, 2013 at 7:51 pm

          An ultramarathon is the exception because it’s an *ultra* marathon, running significantly greater distances than a regular marathon, plus the trail challenges are on rough terrain. Ultramarathons are the ultimate in endurance running. And the simple fact is women perform just as well as men, often beating them. As far as endurance sports go, IMO, it doesn’t get much tougher.

    Harperman in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 10:32 am

    “Icky guns”? Man you hang out with the wrong ladies. Most of my lady friends are packing heat. I trained some of them. I sent one of them a photo of two black rifles on my couch and she wrote back, “OOOH I love it when you send me sexy pictures!”

    smokefan in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 10:38 am

    Dude. Really?

    I’m a woman and a gun owner. And perfectly capable of coldly analyzing the facts and reaching a logical conclusion. And you can bet your sweet @$$ that if you knocked me down, broke my nose, climbed on top and started beating the crape out of me, you’d have a round of 9mm Luger JHP inside you before you knew what was happening.

    Don’t underestimate us women. You do so at your peril.

      Exiliado in reply to smokefan. | July 7, 2013 at 11:07 am

      I would vote this comment up 10 times if allowed.

      mwsomerset in reply to smokefan. | July 7, 2013 at 11:10 am

      The only time I have “penis envy” is when I have to go to the bathroom in the woods.

      bildung in reply to smokefan. | July 7, 2013 at 11:20 am

      Um, I think you’re making my point. Thanks!

        smokefan in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 11:36 am

        Your point being that you’re a sexist twit? You’re welcome!

        Stephen in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 11:50 am

        Bildung, I guess you could have made your point a little more eloquently; instead you seem to be giving some of the commenters here a graving for fava beans and chianti. Just sayin’.

          Stephen in reply to Stephen. | July 7, 2013 at 12:02 pm

          Oops, “craving”, not “graving”

          Juba Doobai! in reply to Stephen. | July 7, 2013 at 12:15 pm

          There ya go! Bildung said hard things in a spare, unemotional fashion and so evoked a lot of emotion, and some people didn’t seem to have read all the way to the end of his comments. Bildung, there’s a reason men get down on one knees and propose instead of offering a rational argument for marriage.

      creeper in reply to smokefan. | July 7, 2013 at 12:58 pm

      Exactly. My purse contains more than a wallet and makeup.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to smokefan. | July 7, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      You and I and Creeper and the other women on this forum know damn well there are bazillions of women who fir the bill of what bildung is saying.

      The fact that some of you are reacting emotionally and personally to it just proves his/her point.

      So put down the shovel and quit digging us a bigger hole than we already have to climb out of dug by our wimpy, whiny, bed-wetting “I need government to take care of me and my kids” because: “My man left me” or “I don’t know how to make a living” or “I hate icky guns” and the PMS-laden “It’s somebody else’s fault” sisters.

      Estragon in reply to smokefan. | July 7, 2013 at 2:59 pm

      Far be it from me to interrupt the suffragette rally, but 55% of women voted for Obama in 2012, so y’all clearly aren’t all Annie Oakleys out there.

        MegK in reply to Estragon. | July 7, 2013 at 8:05 pm

        55% of women who voted, not 55% of all women. (Sorry to mess up your meaningless stat with a fact. I’ll get back to knitting my doilies now).

      Marco100 in reply to smokefan. | July 7, 2013 at 4:16 pm

      Obviously women, in reacting in a clearly emotional manner to criticism that women tend to be more emotional than men, prove the point.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Marco100. | July 7, 2013 at 6:04 pm

        Preciely, and they’re making the rest of us skirts look bad.

        Yukio Ngaby in reply to Marco100. | July 7, 2013 at 6:48 pm

        How many people don’t react emotionally to baiting insults?

        And men, being such cool rational entities that they are, are not the majority arrested for drunken brawls at 2am, nor rioting because of sporting team victories, etc. Nope. All cold logic and Mr. Spock coolness. Yup.

    Ragspierre in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 11:35 am

    Umm…guys….

    A closing argument in a jury trial involving death is NOT an exercise in “objective legal standards”.

    Some of that has to be there, certainly. But a LOT of the close from both sides will be emotional, and it will be spinning of the evidence. Judging by how the State argued in the JOA motion practice, some of it will be blissfully free from anything heard in that courtroom.

    And, again, I expect Robert Hirshhorn is earning his money, and the defense arguments will be very carefully targeted to specific jurors, especially the juror identified as (he hopes) the opinion leader on the panel.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Being female, and having had thousands of conversations with female friends and coworkers over the years about most every subject under the sun, I agree that more women than not operate their thinking with their emotional apparatus rather than with the centers of logic in their brains. This has become less true as time marches on with women being presented with the same important business and larger life decisions that men have traditionally been responsible for. Although we do still see it happening, in most cases it’s a matter of degree and, when presented with facts, these women are more persuadable and more likely to admit they were wrong than men are. Other women, a somewhat smaller set, are very pragmatic. They draw conclusions and make decisions based on facts after gathering information with a mostly open mind. So take heart.

    I see you’ve gathered a lot of thumbs-down for your post. They may well have come from female posters reacting emotionally to your post without considering the proven fact that a larger percentage of women than men do indeed “think with their hearts, not their minds”. 😉

      So his reference to “their aversion to icky guns” is not emotional but thinking women taking exception to it is?

      I’ll give you credit…you’re at least proving his argument for him.

      Now, how about you go out in the kitchen and make me a sandwich?

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 2:39 pm

        You’re the one proving bildung’s argument by demonstrating personal, emotional knee-jerk offense at what bildung said.

        If you’re saying that all women operate from just as logical and pragmatic a condition as men do, then you’re full of shit.

        The fact that obastard won 55% of the female vote and only 45% of the male vote ought to give you a clue.

          Yukio Ngaby in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | July 7, 2013 at 7:04 pm

          “The fact that obastard won 55% of the female vote and only 45% of the male vote ought to give you a clue.”

          Truly there is no explanation for that statistic other than women are just plain illogical creatures ruled by their emotions. Nope. No other. Can’t be.

      the thumbs down is actually due to the arrogance of the statement.

      Some of us, even non-gun people, like myself object to that kind of statement that is not based in fact, but is itself based upon false assumptions and emotion.

      I am a female, I do not own a gun. However, I do not see guns as being icky. One of my best friends at university, another female was in the rifle club. I have used a gun twice in my life. My cousin was murdered through the use of a gun. However, I am not anti-gun. That is because most murders occur via other means, and there are times a gun can stop the violence.

    boris in reply to bildung. | July 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Let she who has never stereotyped men for thinking with the “wrong head” be the first to …

      creeper in reply to boris. | July 7, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      …because, of course, they never do.

        creeper in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 2:28 pm

        Which was my point to begin with…that women are no more emotional than men.

        We’re having this argument in a country where John Boehner is the Speaker of the House. ‘Nuff said.

          Marco100 in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm

          @ creeper:

          “Which was my point to begin with…that women are no more emotional than men.”

          I spewed soda on my laptop LOL

It doesn’t matter what Capehart thinks. As far as that goes, it doesn’t matter what we think, either. What matters is what the jury thinks. We’ll find out in a couple of weeks what they think. In the meantime, Capehart provides a little entertainment.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to creeper. | July 7, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    …which is exactly what bildung was talking about in the first place before you took off on an estrogen binge.

Jonathan Capehart
JournaOlist
Jonathan Capehart is an American journalist and television personality. He writes for.. The Washington Post’s PostPartisan blog and is a contributor for MSNBC. Wikipedia
Partner: Giuseppe Lignano
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jonathan+Capehart&oq=Jonathan+Capehart&aqs=chrome.0.57.9723154j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Is there a need for more to be stated/typed?

Why, yes there is: ‘If I had a father, he’d look like Barry’..

    graytonb in reply to JP. | July 7, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Oh! ‘MSNBC’ and ‘Journolist’. Why didn’t we get it sooner??
    Those two are all anyone needed to know to understand what’s going on in THAT narrative.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JP. | July 7, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    In other words, this is MSNBC starting to dip its toe into “not guilty” territory.

txantimedia | July 7, 2013 at 10:02 am

The “because they didn’t take an xray his nose was not broken crowd” is an instant identifier of an idiot. Capehart belongs that group, and his “mythbusting” is nothing more than TM advocacy.

    kentuckyliz in reply to txantimedia. | July 7, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    Why would Linzee Folgate order an X ray for a broken nose? It’s not like an arm or leg that you have to cast. She referred him to an ENT.

      I have fractured my coccyx twice. The first time was slipping on stairs and the second time was in hilarious circumstances (at least to my doctor). On both occasions no x-rays were taken. Admittedly on the first occasion I did not know that there were fractures until the x-rays were taken. On the second occasion I was more positive that this was the case despite x-rays not being taken… plus I had a very big bruise on my butt to prove the damage. On that second occasion my doctor did say that they normally do not take x-rays. I assume that with noses, if it looks broken because it is swollen then an x-ray is not necessary. However, sometimes it helps to take an x-ray just as a precaution. It is a pity that Lindsey Folgate did not order the x-ray to be taken.

        Toes and kneecaps can be like that too. No casts, so no real need for an x-ray. Legs and feet are different animals. Why take on the extra radiation if one doesn’t really need to? Why pay for an x-ray that really won’t make any difference in the treatment plan?

          I broke my little toe a while back and that was exactly the reasoning behind not x-raying it. If it’s not going to change the treatment plan, why bother?

The Post article reports that the widely-published “Hollister” t-shirt photo of a baby-faced Trayvon Martin was taken just six months before his death. Don’t know about anyone else, but I find that very hard to believe. First, the source for the date of the Hollister photo is race-baiting agitator Benjamin Crump, hardly a credible source. Second, anyone who has seen Martin’s Twitter photos of himself in the months before his death has to have noticed that he looks far more mature in those photos than he does in the Hollister photo.

I’m not convinced the Post “debunked” the “myth” about the photo; appears more likely that they actually perpetuated the myth.

    JMat in reply to Observer. | July 7, 2013 at 10:21 am

    Observer, we are on the same wavelength! I had just set up my subscription to make that very point! Brilliant minds must think alike! 😉

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Observer. | July 7, 2013 at 10:28 am

    SIZE COMPARISON

    This photo is a true depiction of his size at the time of death, since it was the very last photo made of Trayvon Martin. It would be interesting to know the height of the store employee. That could be determined by the height of the counter, beer cartons, refrigerator doors, etc.

    During his visit to the store, he attempted to buy a cigar, but the clerk refused due to his age.

      Aridog in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 11:27 am

      Interesting photo. Retail store and convenience store counter heights range between 36 inches and 42 inches, with the most common heights being 36 or 42 inches. Without printing the photo and enlarging it to be more precise, it appears that the counter in the photo is of the 36 inch height type…e.g., top appears to be below the waist line of both clerk and customer. Even at the 36 inch height it appears that the customer [purported to be Trayvon…I don’t have the source provenance to be sure] is at or over 6 feet tall…e.g. the counter top appears to be near the leg inseam height of the customer/Trayvon.

      Didn’t his autopsy report or the incident police report say he was 6 feet tall?

        Ragspierre in reply to Aridog. | July 7, 2013 at 11:38 am

        71″. According to Boa. But I would not cut a piece of lumber to any length he gave me without measuring it myself.

          kentuckyliz in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 2:01 pm

          The ME emphasized that was the *length* of the body, not the height. In the photo of TM’s body on the ground at the scene, his legs are drawn up, not extended straight out. The ME also said he didn’t take pictures of the hands because they were curled. So, it can be inferred that the legs were drawn up in rigor mortis. However, kudos to the defense for using the length to calculate BMI, which added two or three BMI’s–22 instead of 19 or 22, which helps them establish TM was not some skinny kid. Brilliant move on defense’s part and the state could not object without establishing that TM was taller than 5’11”. ZING

          kentuckyliz in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 3:11 pm

          Correcting myself: instead of 19, 20, or 21. 22 BMI is well into the normal range. There are nurses on that jury who know what BMI is (presumably).

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Aridog. | July 7, 2013 at 4:08 pm

        Trademark played football. Don’t the coaches measure the players each year?

      Elliott in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 11:49 am

      The store employee was in the courtroom as called by the prosecution. O’Mara on cross had him stand next to him. O’Mara is over six feet. The store employee said he was 5’10” but still much shorter than O’Mara or Trayvon Martin as evidenced by the video tape. The measurement by the ME was during rigor mortis which in no way is evidence of someone’s height while alive.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Elliott. | July 7, 2013 at 12:25 pm

        Or which one of the ME’s careless assistants took the measurement. Are any of them on the defense witness list?

        The store employee was in the courtroom as called by the prosecution. O’Mara on cross had him stand next to him. O’Mara is over six feet. The store employee said he was 5’10″ but still much shorter than O’Mara or Trayvon Martin as evidenced by the video tape.

        That point really stood out to me.

        O’Mara didn’t make a big point about it then but I’m pretty sure he was getting it into evidence so that he could use it during the defense’s turn or during closing arguments.

    V.McCann in reply to Observer. | July 7, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    He also neglects to mention that Saint Skittles’ aunt is the source of the claim that he was 14 in the picture. The “Five Myths” series has never been anything more than a forum to let some hack claim that facts he dislikes aren’t true, but Capehart takes it to a new extreme.

    Stu707 in reply to Observer. | July 7, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Observer, Capehart says he got the information about Travon Martin’s age at the time of the Hollister Tshirt photo from Crump. Now how could you possibly doubt that most reliable s/ source?

    The photo was not taken 6 months prior to his death. It is more like 2 years prior to his death, or even longer.

    pathos in reply to Observer. | July 7, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    The family released these photos and claimed they were taken the week before Trayvon’s death. They show a much more mature looking Trayvon than the Hollister photos.

    Trayvon looks 13 or 14 in the Hollister photo – not the 16 years old he would have been in August 2011, when Crump claims the photo was taken. Crump is completely discredited – this is the same man who claims Trayvon’s past of drug use and fighting has nothing to do with the situation. Suspensions and drugs do not mean someone deserves to be murdered, but it does suggest that Trayvon has aggressive tendencies which would explain why he confronted Zimmerman.

I tried to wade through the comments over there. Lots of “unarmed teenager doing nothing wrong” comments. That’s all well and good. He was an unarmed teenager doing nothing wrong, up until the moment he assaulted Zimmerman. That changed everything.

Other comments too, about “superficial” injuries. Those don’t matter either. One is not required to be injured in order to defend oneself, let alone be injured severely, maybe to unconsiousness or death.

    rokiloki in reply to kimsch. | July 7, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    Plus those same people say trademark should have been able to walk anywhere he wanted (including on private property), but Zimmerman had no right to get out of his truck and follow on public property. They are hypocrites.

    kittycat in reply to kimsch. | July 7, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Hi, Kimish,

    I’m late today on catching up. When you mention other’s comments about TM not having a weapon, well, I guess those folks don’t have the mental capacity to put themselves mentally into George’s shoes. Then, of course, Trayvon really did have weapons on him….his hands. TM opened up a can of whoop *ss on Zimmerman using his MMA-style fighting. So TM’s hands were weapons. All it would have taken is just the right punch on George’s nose to kill him.

    Let’s see, all they would have to say to themselves if they were in GZ’s place is, hey, this guy is whipping me, trying to kill me, so I have to protect myself, pull my gun.

      Yes, what kittykat said.

      Hands are lethal weapons. They are used to strangle people. If they are formed into a fist and used for punching they can break a nose. They can be used to smother people.

      However, the big thing about hands is that it only takes one punch to kill someone.

      There are several cases here in Australia, and all it took was one fatal punch, and the victim was either dead or left with paraplegic injuries.

      MKReagan in reply to kittycat. | July 7, 2013 at 8:34 pm

      Right. His hands plus concrete.

    kittycat in reply to kimsch. | July 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    kimsch, I’m sorry, I misspelled your name in the last post.

I stopped paying attention to this case once I read that Zimmerman was on his back getting punched and his head slammed into the sidewalk. I’ve watched a few “real-life” crime dramas. It’s interesting to note that people are able to defend themselves, be exempt from charges, without having to be beaten bloody to prove it.

If these were two black guys, all of the people stirring up racial animus (like the President) wouldn’t have commented at all. There’d be talk of justification. Unfortunately, there are incidents all over the country where just “mean mugging” (hostile staring) results in black-on-black homicide.

This case never should have gone to trial. If Zimmerman is acquitted, which I hope he is, there are a lot of people who deserve to be sued. Everyone has the right to self-defense.

Midwest Rhino | July 7, 2013 at 10:34 am

“We don’t need you to do that” is as close as police could come to “go ahead and follow from a distance and see where he goes”, without being liable for putting George in danger.

The next step toward “DON’T follow him or confront him” might be … “We’d prefer you don’t follow him”, still not an order but moving closer to “Don’t follow”. But they didn’t even go that far.

Instead just the suggestion “you may proceed at your own risk”, which in legaleese was redrafted as “WE don’t NEED you to do that.” In other words, “YOU CAN act on your own, but WE are not going to PUT YOU in harm’s way”.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 7, 2013 at 10:37 am

    they also didn’t say “YOU don’t need to do that”. They made themselves the subject … “WE don’t NEED” … eg. WE are not telling you, WE are not liable.

Uncle Samuel | July 7, 2013 at 10:46 am

A few of my remaining questions about this case:

When would Trayvon Martin have stopped beating George Zimmerman?

When would Trayvon’s code of street justice of retribution for whitey nosing into his (drug consumption and profitable burgling?) business be satisfied?

With death?

Or just unconsciousness?

How soon would the photos have appeared on Trayvon’s Twitter, Facebook and the various Street Justice and MMA sites?

    Harperman in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 11:01 am

    And if he had settled with beating Zimmerman unconscious how long would it have been before Zimmerman’s pistol appeared on the black market?

      Harperman in reply to Harperman. | July 7, 2013 at 12:31 pm

      I should add to my comment above that anyone who carries a firearm has a moral responsibility to keep control over that firearm and ensure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. If you feel yourself loosing consciousness you better be thinking about defending the possession of that firearm.

      kentuckyliz in reply to Harperman. | July 7, 2013 at 2:04 pm

      TM was in the market for a firearm…I think that was in his texts or tweet stream IIRC. He would have kept it (if he was stupid) or traded it for another gun with someone else (if he was smart).

    Elliott in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Some of his text messages show he intended to fight someone to whom he had already lost a fight because he didn’t see enough blood on the other guy. So that was one standard he used previously. Since Zimmerman’s bloody nose was running down his throat instead of presenting as a bloody face, he hadn’t met that threshold perhaps. It seems Zimmerman couldn’t do anything right including bleeding.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    TM would’ve beaten GZ to death that night had GZ not stopped him. TM did tell GZ that he, GZ, was going to die that night.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 7, 2013 at 1:49 pm

      Taking into account the texts with gang bang attitude, druggie with pics of a gun and playing the “bad ass”, that had struck the bus driver, had burgled, and looked to ambush Zimmerman … he may well have been trying to get the gun and shoot George. Fits the attitude of a gangster wannabe … not like there aren’t kids that would shoot people.

      What lessons are black kids learning, except that white folks deserve to be punished. Our own government is promoting that point of view.

      I talked to some white kid (out on some work release) that had killed another drug dealer that had encroached on his territory. He was young so somehow was already out a couple years later. He was just a normal kid it seemed, but was matter of fact that the kid he killed knew it would happen if he came on his turf. “That’s just how it is.” Got caught cuz his shirt hung up jumping a fence, so the second guy got away and testified.

      There’s another world out there … only 140 million file taxes, only half those pay. What world do the rest live in?

        rokiloki in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 7, 2013 at 2:00 pm

        There is no evidence zimmerman had his gun out until just before he shot trademark. It is unlikely trademark even knew zimmerman had a gun until he was beating his head on the oncrete and zimmerman’s jacket rode up exposing the weapon.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to rokiloki. | July 7, 2013 at 2:37 pm

          right … TM probably would not have approached if he knew GZ was armed. But in the heat of the moment, with TM dominant and feeling “jazzed”, sees the gun … he either backs off realizing the high stakes now at hand … or all pumped could well try to get the gun, may well have then shot George, given the chance.

          Certainly isn’t provable .. maybe he would have grabbed gun and decided not to murder. But Trayvon wasn’t exactly on “the right path”. They have to alter the truth on every account to portray him as the innocent child, right down to the iced tea rather than the skittles and watermelon juice that are ingredients for “lean”, which he had inquired about.

        Aridog in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 7, 2013 at 5:58 pm

        ” There’s another world out there … only 140 million file taxes, only half those pay. What world do the rest live in? ”

        Excellant question. My concern is we may find out sooner than later. I’m too old for this crap.

There is no evidence to suggest that GZ continued to follow TM. I want to back up a little from when GZ exited his truck. It’s important. We need to understand when the dispatcher asked GZ if TM was near the clubhouse and GZ quickly said yes, GZ doesn’t know or remember the name of the street he is on, which is Twin Trees Lane. The clubhouse was the closest address GZ knew. TM was near the T.
TM rounded the NW building of the T, out of site from GZ who is parked on the north side of Twin Trees facing east toward the T. GZ is on the phone with the dispatcher. TM reappears after a few seconds. Why? To see if GZ got of this truck, but GZ stayed put. TM wants GZ to follow him down the dog walk. GZ didn’t get out of his truck. This indicated to TM that GZ was not an undercover or off duty cop. TM stares at GZ. This is when on the nen call GZ says now he’s staring at me, now he is coming toward me. TM doubled back to GZ. GZ states, he’s got his hand in his waistband, something is wrong with him, yep he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is, please get an officer over here.
TM circles GZ truck and runs, skips, takes off. Why? GZ is still his truck looking scared. TM is now sure GZ is not law enforcement. No cop would allow anyone to approach them in confrontational manner with their hand in their waistband without reacting. TM runs, not because his scared, but a taunt, to draw GZ out of his truck and down the dog path. GZ takes the bait and gets out of his truck to following TM. Shortly after the dispatcher asked are following him? GZ said yes, Sean said we don’t need you to do that. GZ said ok. GZ stopped following TM, never going down the dog walk heading south in the direction TM went. The cut though of the T is west to east where GZ remained on walking east to RVC to get an address. From the time TM ran, approximately 4 minutes pass before TM doubled back again to confront GZ. He had to double back because GZ stopped following him

    Browndog in reply to vmic. | July 7, 2013 at 11:46 am

    Paragraphs are easier to read. Not being a grammar nazi, just sayin’.

    kentuckyliz in reply to vmic. | July 7, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    The time between the car door bell alarm dinging to the dispatcher saying “We don’t need you to do that” is 12 or 15 seconds, I have it in my notes somewhere. You can listen to the NEN call and time it for yourself by listening to the audio at txantimedia or axiom(something) websites. GZ was already at or near the T when the dispatcher said that, and GZ immediately said OK and stopped. It’s audible.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to vmic. | July 7, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    Trademark was hunting GZ.

The State says that Zimmerman had a seething ocean of hate hidden under his everyman persona. No

– I am perhaps naive but I was stunned to realize the seething undercurrent of hate in the black community for white people. It started to come clear to me when I saw videos of black people sitting and cheering the Reverend Wright’s hateful rants against Americans. The people who tore themselves in two to free them from slavery (what people ever did that for another group of people?).

The people who have spent the last 60 years giving black people more opportunity for success then we gave our own children. And all they learned over those 60 years was if we make them feel bad about themselves they will give us ‘free stuff”. And more importantly if I play my cards right I can be the one handing out the free stuff.

    Bernice in reply to betty. | July 7, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    “Free stuff” giveaway now expanded to include the freedom of one innocent “white Hispanic.”

    wyntre in reply to betty. | July 7, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    Having spent almost two decades in urban school systems “teaching” music I am all too familiar with the hatred blacks have for whites, and Hispanics.

    In my last school my “classroom” was the stage of the “cafetorium” and was a hangout for aides and assistants during their daily breaks. The stuff I heard coming out of their mouths was sometimes so egregious I would walk from behind the curtain separating the stage from the rest of the room just to let them know there was a white person nearby hearing everything they said.

    They’d shut up or lower their voices, tone down their comments, stop yelling white honky bytch or white fothermucker for a few minutes.

    And they LIKED me!

    Then there were the numerous cases of racism leveled at white teachers by black parents trying to get a windfall from the school district. I was accused once and had to fight tooth and nail to keep my job. Of course the allegations were a lie, which I proved.

    Finally, black staff were always complaining about the lack of black teachers but didn’t seem to understand one had to complete a BA and an MA in order to be legally permitted to teach (in NJ).

    Additionally, the few black teachers on staff did their best to get out of the classroom as soon as they could complete some other “pull-out” type license. They didn’t want to deal with the kids at all.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to wyntre. | July 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm

      My husband taught in Michigan schools, then California schools.

      I understand exactly what you’re saying and can picture it in my mind as I read your post.

      The black kids are feral savages born of feral savages and taught hatred of whites from birth.

        Yukio Ngaby in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | July 7, 2013 at 7:17 pm

        “The black kids are feral savages born of feral savages and taught hatred of whites from birth.”

        Nope. You’re not a racist. You just say racist things.

        I can’t understand why people could possibly hate you personally when you say they’re “feral savages born of feral savages.” I guess they’re just not sophisticated enough to appreciate your superiority and class…

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to betty. | July 7, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    It’s very good to see people starting to understand this.

To me, the fundamental question is:

Why didn’t Trayvon Martin just go home?

I look for O’Mara to uncloak this elephant in the room.

    bks in reply to Browndog. | July 7, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Browndog, he couldn’t go home because Zimmerman killed him.

    –bks

    Martin was headed home.

    Zimmerman: Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.

    Dispatch: Just let me know if he does anything ok.

    Zimmerman: Sh!t he’s running.

    Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

    Zimmerman: The back entrance… fu#@ing {unintelligible}

    Dispatcher: Are you following him?

    Zimmerman: Yeah.

    So Martin was heading home. The something in his hands was a can of Iced Tea. Zimmerman was between Martin and his house, so Martin cuts, but is still running towards his house, which is near the back entrance. Zimmerman follows. There are several minutes between this time and the shooting, but Martin is on the phone with Jeantel.

    It’s clear they each viewed the other as a threat. The difference is that Zimmerman was armed and an adult.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:05 pm

      Martin considers him such a threat that he conducts a running chit-chat…complete with racial epithets…through the whole thing, rather than call 911.

      Bollocks. And Dad’s house has a front and back entrance, no?

      You are trying to force a fit with facts. Reality is better.

        Ragspierre: Martin considers him such a threat that he conducts a running chit-chat…complete with racial epithets…through the whole thing, rather than call 911.

        According to Zimmerman, Martin ran away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman then says Martin was heading towards the back entrance, which is exactly where Martin’s house was. Meanwhile, Martin told Jeantel he was being followed. It’s clear he was trying to get home, but was cut off when Zimmerman followed.

          Exiliado in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:14 pm

          So, according to you, Zimmerman ran really fast, really, really fast. Faster than TM in fact. He was able to run past TM and cut in front of him.

          Harperman in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:21 pm

          What is clear is that you have not followed any of the testimony at all. According to Dee Dee Travon had reached his house. He was not cut off. He then decided to return to the Tee and confront Zimmerman. GZ never went down the dog walk towards TM’s house, which was the route TM took. How was Martin cut off? How and why did Martin get from right behind his house, where he was safe, to being back at the Tee over 400 feet away?
          It is painfully obvious that you have listened to none the testimony and have based you opinion purely on MSNBC sound bites.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:23 pm

          “According to Zimmerman, Martin ran away from Zimmerman.”

          Yeh, duh. But out of fear, or because he was playing with him?

          None of the atmospherics support Martin felt any fear at all.

          Whatsoever.

          Harperman: According to Dee Dee Travon had reached his house.

          Um, no. But we’ll look at any specific citation you provide.

          donmc in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:34 pm

          “He was able to run past TM and cut in front of him.”

          and also able to figure out exactly where he was going, despite not knowing TM from Adam.

          And then, of course, Z maliciously shot the dear child, sinisterly reckoning that his non-emergency call to the police would give him the cover to get away with murder. Breaking his own nose and banging his own head into the concrete was another of Z’s clever deceptions to get away with his evil act.

          Calling these people deluded idiots vastly over states their intelligence.

          You ought to review RJ’s testimony. TM was near his house.

          donmc: and also able to figure out exactly where he was going, despite not knowing TM from Adam.

          Actually, Zimmerman didn’t know where Martin was going. He told the dispatcher he was heading towards the rear entrance, when he was clearly running home, which just happened to be near the rear entrance.

          donmc: And then, of course, Z maliciously shot the dear child, sinisterly reckoning that his non-emergency call to the police would give him the cover to get away with murder.

          No, it was mutual suspicion. However, Zimmerman was armed and the adult. Zimmerman bears responsibility.

          Harperman in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm

          Zachriel says:
          “Harperman: According to Dee Dee Travon had reached his house.
          Um, no. But we’ll look at any specific citation you provide.”

          I suggest you review Dee Dee’s testimony.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:51 pm

          “Zimmerman bears responsibility.”

          Not under the law of Florida, he does not.

          Martin was not a tot. He was a young adult male.

          In other words, you can’t provide a citation.

          Ragspierre: Not under the law of Florida, he does not.

          Age of majority is Florida is 18. Martin was 17.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:06 pm

          And fully chargeable for his own conduct, as you know, moron.

          Harperman in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:31 pm

          Again Zachriel says:
          “In other words, you can’t provide a citation.”
          Except I did provide you with a source. You merely chose not to research it.
          Pull your skirt down, your bias is showing.

          aerily in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 3:57 pm

          Zachreal- too bad for your argument that being a minor does not absolve one of all personal responsability. TM was 17 and is responsible for his actions despite being a minor. there is no magic 18th birthday where a minor suddenly becomes responsible for his own actions as you suggest.

          The evidence in the case supports the argument that TM assaulted GZ and during the struggle was shot. Good’s eyewitness testimony where he ordered TM to stop the attack before leaving to call the police and TM’s refusal to comply is strong evidence that TM was the aggressor. The nature of GZ’s wounds and the lack of wounds on TM other than offensive wounds also support an argument that GZ was unprepared for the attack.

          But ultimately none of this matters. Regardless of who initiated what, at the moment that GZ was on his back screaming for TM to stop the attack and TM refused, under Florida law GZ is then legally justified in using lethal force to stop the attack.

          Note nothing here is making a moral judgement. You can argue morality till the cows come home. Under Florida law this appears to be a justifiable homicide. Which is the same conclusion that the original investigator and prosecutor came to when reviewing the evidence before this became a political trial.

          Jay in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 6:50 pm

          Your assertion is preposterous, Zachriel. Zimmerman was not “between” Martin and the TH he was far behind him.
          According to Zimmerman Martin ran out of his sight and according to Ms. Jeantel Martin ran and “I asked him where he at, and he told me he at the back of his daddy fiancee house.”

          So nothing at all supports the idea Zimmerman chased down Martin, nor was Zimmerman between Martin and the home.

          Here is a map:
          http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d83451b4ba69e20167656c6297970b-580wi

          You can stop lying now.

          BrianMacker in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 7:27 pm

          “None of the atmospherics support Martin felt any fear at all.”

          Exactly, someone in fear doesn’t go over to circle a car staring in a the occupant like TM did. Someone in fear would have called the police. If the girlfriend were really concerned and truly in fear for Martin (or thought he actually had something to fear) she would have called police immediately too. Nope, the expectation was that he was going to beat that cracker good, which he started, but ended up on the losing end of a gun.

          Also, Zachriel, Zimmerman said that Martin ran to the rear, not himself. He was arranging to meet with police after he lost Martin.

      Exiliado in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:10 pm

      Does this:

      http://www.newmediajournalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/watermelonjuice.jpg

      look like iced tea to you?

      Isn’t that Arizona Watermelon, a fruit cocktail?

      Do you realize how influenced you are by a narrative with absolutely no grasp at all in reality?

      Please research the facts.
      Please don’t be a parrot. Ignorance is not a virtue.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:17 pm

      Your scenario does not jive with the map.

      TM had PLENTY of time to go home but he chose to assault GZ.

      The cumulative effects of drugs, the culture and perhaps fighting injuries and prior trauma (perhaps even abuse) had made him an aggressor and unwise.

        Uncle Samuel: Your scenario does not jive with the map.

        Of course it does. Zimmerman himself says he was running towards the back entrance, which is where Martin’s house was. Just as clearly, Zimmerman moved to cut off Martin, leaving Martin with path home.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm

          You had better read the transcripts carefully.

          Zimmerman said TM was running toward the back entrance.

          Look, experienced law enforcement investigators took this apart, including the Feds.

          There is NO WAY Zimmerman could have ‘cut off’ TM with his 6 foot height and yard long legs.

          Sure he could have. He only had to walk a short distance to cut him off.

          Zach,

          Love your avatar. A Black Hole.

          BrianMacker in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 7:36 pm

          Zimmerman already lost him. It is on the tape. The altercation happened in the other direction. Martin must have ran back to jump him as he tried to return to his truck. The pounding to Zimmerman’s face and head, scratches only on Martin’s knuckles, and location of the shooting attest to that fact. Plus the only actual eyewitness to approach them had Martin on Zimmerman pounding him in the face.

      Baker in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:26 pm

      “So Martin was heading home. The something in his hands was a can of Iced Tea. Zimmerman was between Martin and his house, so Martin cuts, but is still running towards his house, which is near the back entrance.”

      Zimmerman was between Martin and his house? at that time? Where did that come from?

        Baker: Zimmerman was between Martin and his house? at that time? Where did that come from?

        That’s clear from Zimmmerman’s call to the police. He says Martin was coming towards him, then ran towards the back entrance. That’s where Martin’s house was. Then Zimmerman says he was running after Martin. He would obviously be trying to cut off Martin’s supposed escape through the back entrance. That led to Martin hiding in the shadows. Martin told Jeantel that he lost the man following him, but then there was a confrontation. That confrontation was not on the street where Zimmerman’s truck was parked. Zimmerman obviously followed.

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:52 pm

          Then Zimmerman says he was running after Martin.

          Give us the citation to the transcript that supports this and your other claims or be revealed as a liar again.

          Dispatcher: Are you following him?

          Zimmerman: Yeah.

          http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

          It’s even part of the original post above.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm

          1. where do you find Zimmerman “running”?

          2. how does someone “following” manage to “cut off” the person ahead?

          Ragspierre: how does someone “following” manage to “cut off” the person ahead?

          Because Zimmerman was positioned between the North Entrance and the East (back) Entrance, so Martin had to pass close to Zimmerman to reach that point. Zimmmerman only had to take a few steps to block the way. Remember, he thinks Martin is a bad guy, he thinks the bad guys always get away, he thinks Martin is trying to leave through the back entrance, and if he were attempting to follow him, he would naturally move to intercept his path.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:09 pm

          Yeah, no. You are full of shit.

          There is no reference to Zimmerman running.

          There is no reference to, “Oh, say, I can cut him off”.

          In fact, you whole scenario is a fabric of lies.

          Ragspierre: There is no reference to Zimmerman running.

          Yes, “followed” is more precise than “run”.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:18 pm

          READ the transcript, liar.

          Zimmerman loses him. Middle of page 4.

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm

          Thanks, Ragspierre. My work responsibilities took me away for a few hours, so I couldn’t respond to zachriel’s continued lies.

          zachriel – No honest person could read the transcript and claim that Zimmerman “was running” and “cutoff” Martin. Simply put, the evidence not only doesn’t support but flatly contradicts your meme. Stop lying.

          SmokeVanThorn: No honest person could read the transcript and claim that Zimmerman “was running” and “cutoff” Martin.

          The simple fact of the matter is that Zimmerman said he was following Martin, who told another person that he was being followed. That is sufficient to establish that he felt threatened.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 5:06 pm

          No, you lying moron.

          It is enough to establish he felt followed.

          Then the made sure he wasn’t followed any more.

          Zimmerman LOST him.

          Contra your LIES, Zimmerman did NOT run after him.

          At some point in the future, IT APPEARS Martin RESUMED CONTACT.

          In the interim, he COULD have been safe at home, IF he was scared.

          But AGAIN, the is NOTHING to indicate he was.

          Nor was DeeDee. Was she???

          Jay in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 6:54 pm

          Zachriel says: “That is sufficient to establish that he felt threatened.”

          How absurd. Martin was so “threatened” and running for his life and made a phone call to….Diamond Eugene! A phone call to this girl? Not the cops, not his father? He didn’t care about Zimmerman, he was laughing about it and wanted his girl hear him deal with the “creepy assed guy”

          You obviously have no clue of the topography of the area in question and your posts are nonsensical and self refuting.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:30 pm

      And this has struck me many times…

      Trayvon stops, and from several yards away (so he isn’t raped or anything) says, “Hey, my name is Trayvon. I am staying with my Dad in Number _____.”

      And nobody is hurt that night.

        graytonb in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 12:36 pm

        Heck, he could even have skipped the preliminaries. A simple ‘I’m headed to ______’s ‘ would probably have sufficed.

          Ragspierre in reply to graytonb. | July 7, 2013 at 12:58 pm

          My point being PARTLY that the merest whiff of breeding (i.e., teaching manners and courtesy) would have led to an entirely different result.

          We teach our children to be polite to and respectful of strangers partly as a means to avoid such confrontations.

          When you think of someone you don’t know, on a dark night, as a “creepy-ass[ed] cracker” you are apt to convey all that to them in ways that don’t end well.

          rokiloki in reply to graytonb. | July 7, 2013 at 2:26 pm

          Or he could have just said “Stop following me you honky muthafocker!”

          Kind of rude, but even with that he’d still be alive.

          Ragspierre in reply to graytonb. | July 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm

          Or that…

        BrianMacker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 7:49 pm

        or TM could have said “I’m on the phone with the police and they are on their way”. He had a cell phone.

      graytonb in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:30 pm

      Why was TM taking 45 minutes + to make what should have been a 10-minutes-or-less trip to his father’s fiancee’s place?
      Stopping to look in the various home windows along the way?

        stella dallas in reply to graytonb. | July 7, 2013 at 1:25 pm

        Sorry for the placement of my post. I wasn’t responding to you. I am typing in the car, heading down the interstate, we must have hit a bump or something. My response was intended for a much much earlier post.

      stella dallas in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:15 pm

      Are you sure at this point it was a can of iced tea in his hands? Didn’t they find some burglary tools near there? In any event I thought the can was a watermelon drink, not iced tea.

        BrianMacker in reply to stella dallas. | July 7, 2013 at 7:40 pm

        No Stella there were no burglar tools found near there. That was a separate incident at TM’s school, prior to him being kicked out, and ending up at his father’s girlfriend’s house.

      V.McCann in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      No, the difference is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and beat the crap out of him.

      rokiloki in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 2:12 pm

      What evidence do you base “zimmerman was between trademark and his home”? This is the firs i’ve heard of that.

      All the real evidence supports trademark was between zimmerman and trademark’s home. He had over 4 minutes to go 400 feet. Rachel jeantel says trademark made it home and then returned to confront zimmerman.

        BrianMacker in reply to rokiloki. | July 7, 2013 at 7:42 pm

        Not only that but his own girlfriend testified that he referred to Zimmerman as a “crazy-ass cracker”. I guess crazy for being out at night where a racist like Martin could get a shot at him.

      rokiloki in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 2:15 pm

      Btw, the home trademark was staying was by the back entrance. So you disputed your own claim by quoting the call. Hahaha!

      rokiloki in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 2:36 pm

      Zachriel is so full of doo-doo.

      Linked below is a map of trademark’s path home and how long it should have taken him. There is no way zimmerman could have cut him off.

      http://lawofselfdefense.com/zimmerman-trial-myth-busters-did-zimmerman-chase-down-a-fleeing-martin/

      Bryan24 in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 3:04 pm

      Total bull crap.

      Martin was approximately 400 feet from home when Zimmerman lost sight of him at the “T”.

      Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and wen to the head of the “T”. He did not see Martin. According to the phone records, this takes about 12-15 seconds

      So, either Martin sprinted hard all the way home OR he stopped running and hid. EITHER WAY, HE STARTED IT. Why do I say that?

      If he got all the way home (remember, Zimmerman said he didn’t see him), that means he ran all the way BACK to the “T” to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman NEVER went down the T.

      If Trayvon Martin didn’t run all the way, then that means he stopped and hid, waiting on Zimmerman.

      Common sense, logic and a stop watch tells you that Martin never went all the way home. He turned the corner and hid, waiting to see if Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.

      When he saw him go the East, Martin headed back up the “T”. When Zimmerman returned just a minute or so later, MArtin was there waiting.

      Who was stalking who?

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Bryan24. | July 7, 2013 at 4:59 pm

        THIS IS THE CORRECT SCENARIO.

        Martin circling the car, etc. was trying to look tough, posture, bait Zimmerman into getting into a fight.

        Martin’s family’s break-ups, drugs and fighting had made him an angry aggressive kid.

        His public internet posts, attacking a bus driver, his mother sending him away because she could not handle him, reveal just that.

    rokiloki in reply to Browndog. | July 7, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    He did go home. He returned to confront the creepy ass cracker he saw earlier. Thats where he was during the 4 minute gap between zimmerman’s nen call and the neighbors’ 911 calls.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Browndog. | July 7, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    When RJ called TM back at 7:12, TM was at home. She testified to that and it is one shred of her testimony that I believe because it’s not supportive of the case she’s trying to make. TM has 4 minutes to get back up to the T to confront and assault GZ, and RJ testified that during this time she heard wind noise, and TM breathing harder than normal, and he was speaking in a very low quiet voice (not to be discovered).

    Jayne Surdyka’s testimony, she hears (TM) talking loud but not in distress or in an argument 5 (10, 2) minutes before she hears the confrontation. The same voice she heard first was the voice that started the confrontation and spoke first and third.

    RJ testified that TM spoke first.

    TM confronted GZ…when he could have walked into Brandi’s house and gave Chad the skittles and watched the NBA game. A very poor decision on TM’s part.

    Aridog in reply to Browndog. | July 7, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    According to some witness testimony Trayvon was already near *home* but back tracked. It boggles my mind how the state founjd any grounds for prosecution.

      MarkS in reply to Aridog. | July 7, 2013 at 7:17 pm

      Wouldn’t the location of the Skittles and Tea after the shooting answer the question of whether or not Trayvon actually went home. Doubtful he would return with the Skittles to confront a cracker.

Uncle Samuel | July 7, 2013 at 11:53 am

There is NO QUESTION in my mind, that:

– If someone had come to his aid and helped subdue Trayvon Martin, Martin would still be alive (and perhaps in the juvenile system).

– If the school had not covered TM’s crimes, Trayvon would be in the Miami juvenile system and on probation and probably still alive.

– If Trayvon’s parents had been married and good role models, and he had not fallen into the drug-gun-violence media-fueled black gansta culture, MMA, and had not had the immature tendency to post exploits online in order to ‘be a hero’, TM would most likely still be alive.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Clarification:
    – If someone had come to George Zimmerman’s aid and helped subdue Trayvon Martin, Martin would still be alive (and perhaps in the juvenile system).

    Exiliado in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    Which brings us to the question:

    Who is responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death?

    # 1: Trayvon Martin

    # 2: Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton

    # 3: Miami Dade Schools Police

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Exiliado. | July 7, 2013 at 12:19 pm

      IMO:
      Those guilty of killing Trayvon are:
      – his parents,
      – the black gangsta culture,
      – the media and entertainment industry,
      – the street justice proponents (NBPP, Farrakhan, Sharpton, et al),
      – his peers who cheer violence and hurting whites for fun, – the liberals and race industry who enable criminal and immoral behavior by their benefits and entitlement programs and policies,
      – the direct, cumulative and interactive effects of the drugs Trayvon had consumed and finally,
      – Trayvon himself for his choices and attitudes.

      Ultimately only Trayvon Martin is responsible because he made a series of poor choices that put him on a path to destruction.

        Yukio Ngaby in reply to Aussie. | July 7, 2013 at 8:29 pm

        Absolutely.

        People are responsible for their own actions. TM was old enough to choose his thuggish lifestyle, and he chose to try to beat the stuffing out of an armed man. The results were his responsiblility and not the school’s or the police’s or the media’s.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    I don’t think Good is a coward at all–he stepped outside when his wife had told him not to. Should we have expected him to join in? He is a white collar guy and doesn’t come across as a person who fights. Are Good Samaritans required to intervene, at risk to themselves? No. In fact, under KY law, Good could have shot TM then and there under self defense and be immune from prosecution and civil penalties.

    Fun facts: there is an assault every 20 minutes in KY. There is a rape every hour. There is a homicide every 39 hours. There is a robbery every 5 hours. There is a burglary/breaking & entering every 24 minutes. Under KY law, it is legal to shoot in any of these situations. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is my reading of the KY statutes and crime report (2011–latest available).

The mob doesn’t give a flying hoot about the details or the facts.

It’s a lynch mob, plain and simple.

And you can bet your last dime that they have had a significant impact on the jury. Despite the 100 to 0 evidence, my bet is that they vote for their own personal safety. I sure hope I’m wrong, and if I am, those poor women are going to have a lot of “bad luck” in their lives from this point forward.

The conservative media has been far too dispassionate about this case. It isn’t about the law or justice, it’s about the mob proving that they can absolutely throw away the law and justice, and scream in your face while doing it. Everyone involved in any way with the prosecution should live in shame for the rest of their lives.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to donmc. | July 7, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    Yep, IRS audits, NSA surveillance, OSHA, EPA, FBI, SS, every agency that can be brought to bear.

    This is a racist Thugocracy we are dealing with here.

    kentuckyliz in reply to donmc. | July 7, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    The jurors know they are in danger. I am sure they are being heavily guarded. They heard Good say that this event was the first 911 call he ever made, but there have been lots since. Defense atty said this is the first time your name has been publicly stated because it is legally required. Good fought hard to stay anonymous and experienced witness intimidation. Plain as the nose on your face (which is hopefully not broken).

      donmc in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 4:58 pm

      Good’s a hero. Unfortunately, his suffering has just begun.

      RickMarch in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 8:56 pm

      There’s no doubt that the jury is aware of the intimidation factor. Even West, in his opening statement, made these two comments:

      (1) “There have been some anonymity issues throughout the case.” [speaking of witnesses]

      (2) “We were using witness numbers rather than names.”

Juba Doobai! | July 7, 2013 at 11:59 am

Cape heart is part of the LSM. They love to make things up; facts be damned!

To channel The Guv to the LSM: “stop making things up!”

What scares the living daylights out of me is what I see on other comment sites. I have seen dozens and dozens of people claim that they have “been following this trial closely.” Yet is is painfully obvious that they haven’t listened to any of the trial themselves but consider “following this trial closely” to be reading all the MSNBC soundbites.
The sheer number of people who have prejudged GZ and refuse to listen or think about any of the testimony is terrifying as is the number of people who don’t seem to understand the phrase, “Beyond a reasonable doubt.”.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Harperman. | July 7, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    They may be listening but uncomprehending or not liking what they hear.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Harperman. | July 7, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Yes, I agree – it’s scarey. I’ve been surfing sites related to the trial all morning, and a disproportionate number of the people commenting support the evidence-less Traybot narrative.

    It’s like arguing facts to religious fanatics contrary to their beliefs – an exercise in futility. Even more frightening is the reluctance of the MSM to alter the incorrect narrative they were responsible for starting: a poor unarmed black kid shot unnecessarily by an armed white neighborhood watch man. Contrary to a mountain of mounting evidence presented at the trial for ‘reasonable doubt’ their slanted ‘objective’ reportage continues to skirt that element of the testimony.

    And as noted above, even the conservative media has remained mostly aloof. With the exception of one or two mildly questioning articles at the WSJ, they have been content to side-step it as well. They don’t appear to care about the injustice of the ongoing prosecution any more then the liberal-slanted media. Zimmerman has become a ‘tar-baby’ defendant to avoid handling as much as possible: not worth having a concerted blow-back outcry of prejudice and racism from Blacks and the attendant fallout of displeasure from advertisers I would guess.

    Of course, as Andrew has pointed out, the defense case is just starting. Hopefully it will be persuasive enough to shift the off-course ocean-liner momentum of the media to a more favorable course of reportage.

      kentuckyliz in reply to jayjerome66. | July 7, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      I was thinking about why the more conservative media outlets weren’t addressing this case more (like the conversation we are having here on LI). It’s a political decision. If they address it, it will be used by the racial grievance community to paint Republicans and conservatives as racist. However, there silence isn’t going to win over any minority support–so what is there to lose?

      If the more conservative media were savvy, they’d hit the Hispanic angle hard and get Hispanics all excited about their rights to defend themselves against aggravated assault. This could paint conservatives as more supportive of Hispanics–something they are trying to do.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 5:05 pm

        Fox News has covered the trial extensively. As for print, there is no major print publication that is conservative or even neutral.

        Hence, the alternative media.

        EyesWideOpen in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 5:47 pm

        I was very glad to see the D do a good job of dispelling the “white-on-black racial vigilante” narrative for the jury with the testimony of GZ’s mother and uncle. They are both classy, credible, dignified, and accomplished LATINOS WITH VERY BROWN SKIN. That had to undercut the prosecution’s phony narrative of skin-tone-hatred. Very effective IMO.

I may have missed it but has there been a clearly delineated map of what is known about TM’s peregrinations that night. I don’t think so. There has been testimony of the “I was here he was there” sort but I have not seen it but together in an easily digested schematic.

Because the state has not produced a map like that I suspect that it does not help their case. Perhaps when it is put together with the timeline it will clarify the arguments of the defense.

Cracker-American | July 7, 2013 at 12:18 pm

Since we HAVE to accept the fact

that creepy cracker IS NOT A RACIAL term, lets look up creepy in the Urban Dictionary! it refers to an unwanted sexual advance by an older man in many of its conjugations. This is most likely the motive for TM assaulting GZ

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Cracker-American. | July 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Or, that phrase could connote drug-induced paranoia.

    It is also highly possible that Trayvon, a fatherless boy, could have been the victim or near victim of a sexual predator. Handsome young men whose fathers are not in the home are the primary target of sexual deviants.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Cracker-American. | July 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    So if TM assaulted GZ because he thought GZ was a gay man, that would make what TM did a hate crime. We just had a hate crime conviction for beating a gay man, here in KY. Nice long sentences. Horrifying story.
    http://www.kentucky.com/2013/06/19/2684682/two-eastern-kentucky-men-sentenced.html

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Cracker-American. | July 7, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    We don’t have and do not accept that as fact.

    We’ve already been down the supposed sexual aspect of “creepy-ass cracker” and the theory is found wanting.

    It was a racist remark, plain and simple.

      Yep, that’s a no-brainer. The accent she used was on Cracka, with ‘ creepy-ass’ used together as one term. She did not say ‘creepy white ASS -cracka ‘….which would have been the only way to stretch that into a sexual metaphor.

John Guy: Listen carefully when the screaming stops. It’s right when the gunshot goes off. Trayvon Martin was silenced immediately when the bullet that the defendant fired passed through his heart.

Another more logical conclusion would be…. After Zimmerman shot TM there was no need to continue screaming for help.

    rokiloki in reply to WMMC. | July 7, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    Plus if you believe trademark was screaming, you would have to also believe zimmermanstood there with a gunallowing him to scream and attract attention for over 40 seconds. And you have to to believe zimmerman somehow knew when the police would arrive, since he had already called for police.

    I think only very stupid people wold believe any of these.

      kentuckyliz in reply to rokiloki. | July 7, 2013 at 3:30 pm

      I have never heard or heard of screaming for their life in terror when they are opening up a can of whoop-ass on someone else. Getting all medieval on their ass.

      I’m so scared that I am beating you this mercilessly?

        rokiloki in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 3:48 pm

        Someone in another LI thread had a funny scenario. He said what happened was zimmerman pulled a gun on trademark then made him watch while he beat himself on the head. Seeing the creepy ass cracker beating himself scared trademark and thats when he started screaming. When zimmerman was done beating himself, he shot trademark.

Uncle Samuel | July 7, 2013 at 12:26 pm

David Horowitz at Front Page posted a disappointing blurb today about the Zimmerman trial.

      Bernice in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 1:01 pm

      I hereby demote him to David Horo-half-wit.

      Horowitz: What we have learned through the process of the trial thus far is that the only surviving witness, Zimmerman, is not credible. He has lied on several revealing occasions.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:28 pm

        IF true, that would make him just like you.

        Harperman in reply to Zachriel. | July 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm

        What we have learned through this trial so far is that the State has rested is case without coming anywhere near the burden of proving their case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

        Almost everyone of their witnesses have confirmed Zimmerman’s statement of the events as much as it can be confirmed or else they have been thoroughly discredited.

      Ragspierre in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      Having read the Horowitz piece, all I can say is that the man is generally a much clearer thinker than this.

      Did Zimmerman lie about the money during the bail process?

      Yes. He did. And I said so at the time. It was a HUGE mistake, as his lawyer acknowledged. NO excuses.

      Did he lie about SYG? Dunno. Can’t say what he understood the question to be, and can’t but speculate about the terms used both in class and by Hannity, or the stress he was under at the time. I’ve had witnesses say the OPPOSITE of what I knew they knew on the witness stand, simply because they were in brain-freeze.

      Is Horowitz’s indulgence about Zimmerman’s belief system remotely a ‘lie’? NO. It isn’t even germane to anything, except as a self-absorbed flight.

      Is the SYG law in need of revision? HELL, NO.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 2:10 pm

        Re: the Zimmerman defense fund. His brother Robert Zimmerman was in charge of those funds, wasn’t he? Did George have control or access to the money for bail/bond? Was it in the Zimmerman’s personal funds or a special account? Or was it to be used for attorney fees?

        The Zimmerman Defense Fund is a tiny fraction of the money gained by the Martins from their various Trayvon Trail of Tears Tours, the State of FL Victims Fund and other state/federal sources.

        The Trayvon Foundation has a large slate of lawyers, staff and is IRS Tax Exempt group. Wonder how long it took to get that IRS approval?

        Mr. Horowitz or his staff need to do their homework and look at both sides and weigh things more carefully.

          Ragspierre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 2:18 pm

          NO. Unc, he LIED. So did his wife. No two ways about it.

          You can twist and squirm. He LIED.

          Rags I am taking you to task. Shellie answered the question that was given to her and she did not lie when she gave that answer because of the precise nature of the question.

          On top of that she stated “My brother in law would know” or words to that effect. The Persecution dropped the questions at that point and then a few weeks later they dropped a bombshell.

          The fact is that the Persecution lied in the affidavit against Shellie Zimmerman. In that affidavit they left out that crucial statement that Robert Zimmerman Jr. was the one who would be able to give an answer to the question.

          Thus the lie is from the Persecution, not from the Zimmermans.

          Ragspierre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 8, 2013 at 12:31 am

          Aussie, you are simply wrong. Both the Zimmermans lied.

        Baker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 4:00 pm

        “Did he lie about SYG? Dunno. Can’t say what he understood the question to be, and can’t but speculate about the terms used both in class and by Hannity, or the stress he was under at the time.”

        I agree basically.

        My take on this is that this should be considered more of a ‘misstatement’ rather than a ‘lie’. A lie is a wrong statement with an intention to deceive. I don’t think there was any intent to deceive. I doubt very seriously he had even thought of when he may have first heard the term or may have been exposed to SYG. Without a doubt what he had heard about SYG over the past few months before the interview would FAR overwhelm anything he might have been exposed to months before in a classroom setting. Even if he answered the question in what we now know is ‘correct’ answer what difference would it have made. I just don’t see what he would have materially gained by an attempt to deceive and I see answer as just an unintentional misstatement. (And remember, he wasn’t under oath. This was just an interview.)

        Let’s face it, the SYG issue was far more political/media issue. This is what prompted the question. The ultimate defense decisions were between GZ and his attorneys. I’m sure GZ and his team were not so concerned with the political or cultural aspects and attentions paid to SYG. They were concerned with the actual laws applicable in the jurisdiction at the time.

        Let’s give GZ a break on this one. After all, we just heard the ME essentially tell us he can’t remember much of a 40 minute conversation he had the DA over the past 36 hours, but GZ is supposed to remember a portion of a class discussion that he may have heard or participated in months ago? If I could have remembered everything thing I heard in class during college for just a matter of days or weeks maybe I could have graduated Magna Cum Luade. (BTW, I didn’t but I did get the degree. )

          kentuckyliz in reply to Baker. | July 7, 2013 at 5:52 pm

          GZ may have remembered the content of Professor Carter’s class but not the term for it (consistent with his difficulty in knowing the street name). Carter’s testimony is relevant here.

      TexasJew in reply to MSimon. | July 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm

      Horowitz seems to have found his old Inner Gun-hating Bleeding Heart Jewish LeftWing Wackjob

    Horowitz:

    Here is what I think as a result of these reflections. The Stand Your Ground Law should be rewritten to apply only to home invasions since then it is clear that the intruder is the aggressor and the response is self-defense.

    What a moron.

    (a) What he wants is Stand Your Ground to be outlawed in all states, for it to be illegal to try to defend yourself rather than run away, unless you are in your own home. “Rewriting” it to apply to only home invasions would result in the Castle Doctrine, which (apparently unbeknownst to him) is already the law in most states.

    (b) He doesn’t understand that the Zimmerman case has nothing whatsoever to do with Stand Your Ground laws. NOTHING!

    As our learned friend Dee-Dee aka Rachel aka Diamond Eugene would say, “That’s retarded, sir.”

This is not one but several of the many logical fallacies about this case. Some on Twitter have said “Zimmerman ignored orders not to follow and yada yada yada Trayvon’s dead. If he had not gotten out of his car Trayvon would still be alive.”

1. Zimmerman was not in his car.
2. “OK, we don’t need you to do that” is not an order, it is a suggestion.
3. If Trayvon didn’t confront Zimmerman and try to kill him Trayon would still be alive.

Wow, WJ. Great sleuthing.

Carol Herman | July 7, 2013 at 12:49 pm

Nixon was a big catch, bagged by the Washington Post. In its day. No longer its day, anymore. SHRUNK! They can’t get enough advertisers in to print their rags, anymore!

Are they hoping Zimmerman changes that? You know, I don’t know the name “Capehart” from toilet paper. If you said it was a brand of toilet paper, I’d shrug and ask “so what happened to Charmin?”

GROUNDSWELLS don’t occur overnight. We’re not a large majority of AMericans, just yet. But this trial has pulled us in. Maybe, ahead, it will be used in law schools to teach about “breaches to trust.” Lousy judges and their smelly political decisions? Maybe, many Americans will be weeping for a judicial system that was powerful in Matlock. And, Perry Mason. I don’t know. But we used to have heroes. We used to talk about Clarence Darrow. And, the Scopes Trial. We used to learn about the railroad where whites and blacks (Harriet Tubman, born in 1840), worked to get slaves out of the south and to the freedom of Canada.

Jury Nullification. In America it goes back to 1835. In America it was used during Prohibition. And, since we know how ugly these unfair “notches in the belt” happen because we’ve militarized our ‘war on drugs’ to include so many innocents … Maybe, we should mention the trials were the jurors don’t take the judge’s instructions, and, instead, they NULLIFY.

William Penn, mid 1650’s, was on trial in England. The judge was so angry that the jury said William Penn was not guilty, he turned around and put all the jurors in jail. And, fined them. BIG TIME.

William Penn left for the “colonies.” Today, we say PENNSYLVANIA, in honor of William Penn’s arrival.

Miscarriages of justice “happens.” But for some reason, sometimes, this become the DRYFUS glue. This becomes the stuff an Emile Zola brings forward to the public. And, the public gets knowledge.

So far, in two minutes, O’Mara brought in two witnesses. BANG! The Defense is coming out in a roar! (What’s a “coach gun?”)

What if next up we see Vincent DiMaoi? Do you inow what I think happens as soon as DiMaoi hits the stand? Across our country, people who believe in the 2nd Amendment. And, people who are at all involved in our court system; will tune in to hear “THE EXPERT.” And, if they don’t catch it live, they’ll Google. Perhaps to find the testimony on You Tube.

I know I get long in the tooth. Thanks, if you’re staying with me. Back in the early 70’s I served on one jury. Civil. The plaintiff’s lawyer was LEONARD AYRE. (See? I can even still spell his name.) Famous. Considered one of the best trial lawyers in NYC’s courthouse. I noticed that while we were usually alone, when AYRE came in the doors opened … and quite a few people took seats. Later, because I dated the other attorney, I would learn a lot about LEONARD AYRE. And, I was fascinated. Now? I’m just an old lady. Does Ayre’s name still ring true?

The the case happen! TRUTH leaves a mark. And, like God working one of his miracles, GROUNDSWELL takes time.

The second “myth” is very disingenuous as well. Zimmerman’s nose did look broke. Just because he refused medical treatment for it doesnt mean is wasnt broken. Capehart implies Zimmerman must have been lying about it.

Still, broken or not, its irrelevant. Sekf-defense doesnt require you to be injured seriously, but only to reasonably fear being injured.

Trevon’s mother in an interview referred to her son as “my angel Treyvon”. Obviously our friend Zachriel buys into this ridiculous piece of drivel.
Let us not forget that this “angel Trevon” was kicked out of school for possession of drugs and his possession of stolen jewelry and burglary tools was covered up by the school in an attempt to pad the crime statistics their students were involved in.
Let us also not forget his obvious love of fighting shown by his own text messages where he states, “He didn’t bleed enough 4 me”.
Nor should we forget his texts about the possession and use of illegal drugs and even his possession of an illegal firearm.
In his texts he also refers to himself as a “gansta”.
This kid was no angel as some would like to portray him.

    Harperman in reply to Harperman. | July 7, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    The funny thing is that despite the fact that everything we know about Trevon shows that he was a wannabe gansta hoodlum who consistently behaved like a gansta hoodlum yet the left would like us to believe that this night and this night alone he was just a terrified child. Sorry but that is a big pile of bologna served up with a generous helping of malarkey sauce.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Harperman. | July 7, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    SF studiously avoided calling TM her “angel” on the stand, because that would open the door to defense to explore how much of an angel TM was. She was carefully prepared, don’t go there! She saves “angel” statements for tweets and media interviews when she is not under oath.

    Observer in reply to Harperman. | July 7, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Sabryna Fulton is also the reason that “angel” Trayvon was in Sanford that night. He had been living with her, but she kicked him out of her home after he was suspended from school (again).

    Also, daddy Martin had a very visible Crips (gang) tattoo on his neck when this whole mess started. After the race-baiters and PR gurus got involved, Martin covered up the gang tattoo with another tattoo (of praying hands).

    The Fulton/Martin/Crump/Sharpton cabal made a concerted effort (in which the corrupt MSM has been complicit) to depict themselves, and their “angel” as something very different from what they really are/were.

    If the statement had come from Alicia Stanley then I would believe her, but if it was $$ybrina Fulton, then I know she is an absolute liar.

Carol Herman | July 7, 2013 at 1:53 pm

Keep in mind the Defense has only just begun. Will it be BDLR’s style to go after each defense witness, the way O’Mara and West kept destroying the state’s case?

Will we see something different? Every Defense witness gets objected to because it is “beyond the scope?” Will BDLR nitpik Vincent DiMaoi.

And, at what point, ahead, will little judge nelson explode? She is a very wrathful lady. What if it becomes obvious that she uses herself as a bumper car … smashing into the witnesses … trying to get them off track?

We haven’t seen anything yet.

We haven’t even seen the “motions” O’Mara has been tossing “upstairs” to an appeal’s court, that doesn’t view nelson as the brightest bulb there is.

How would Clarence Darrow handle such an event?

Isn’t it possible that we are on the cusp of seeing reputations made, and others broken? RAO and BOA come to mind as “experts” that can be shredded on the incompetent ways they handled their tasks?

Given Friday night’s FIRST TWO DEFENSE WITNESSES … I have a feeling on Monday morning these ladies will be hanging off the edges of their seats.

And, nelson could be the “fat lady” that lets out such a loud burp … she’s stun the whole courtroom.

Ahead, is a world where anything can happen.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    Correction:
    Mr. Martin, do you have any feelings of hatred, fear or animosity toward persons who are of a different race, gender or sexual orientation or have you been partaking of any drugs or substances that would cause you to brutally assault Mr. George Zimmerman as you did on the night in question?

    I need to let Juba Dubai! or one of the grammar Nazis edit my comments.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    I posted a series of tweets yesterday about how your public tweets are archived by the federal government, and your public and private tweets and DM’s (direct messages) can be subpoenaed directly from Twitter. I was getting threats of death and rape for live tweeting direct quotes by prosecution witnesses during their testimony. My home phone rang about 1 am this morning. I put a very sharp knife on my nightstand when I went to bed.

      Harperman in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 3:16 pm

      You would be better off with a nice 20 gauge pump shotgun and a few rounds of 00 buckshot.

        kentuckyliz in reply to Harperman. | July 7, 2013 at 3:33 pm

        Gun/ammo store not open on Sunday. 🙂

        The nearest one to me opened fairly recently and it cracked me up. On the left is Lighthouse Christian Bookstore. Next door to it on the right is Guns and Ammo.

        I so want to take a picture…captioned “Bitter Clingers Mall”

Speaking of myth busting: Look for the ME called by defense to totally bust the myth of ‘ no bruises on Trayvon’s hands means he didn’t beat up GZ ‘.

    kentuckyliz in reply to graytonb. | July 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    I expect the MMA trainer will describe what a hammerfist is. Bob Ownens tweeted the link to a youtube video demonstrating it. One blow, through a 1 1/2″ telephone book, on the non-heart side of the chest, and the guy was down and in distress. It probably disturbed the electrical activity in his heart.

      kentuckyliz in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 3:04 pm

      Here’s a video demonstration of a single hammerfist strike.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xc_It0MXvw0

        DriveBy in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 6:50 pm

        You know, you really really really should not believe EVERYTHING that you see or read on the internet!!!! That was fake.

        But if it supports your opinion, push it – many people will consume it and buy in to it. “A sucker is born every minute!” PT Barnum

          Exiliado in reply to DriveBy. | July 8, 2013 at 7:17 am

          I don’t deny that the youtube video is probably mostly fake, but have you ever been punched like that on the chest?

          A blow like that to the chest, or better yet, to the sternum, will make you drop and gasp, then lights out.

      Michiguy in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 9:50 pm

      It probably disturbed the electrical activity in his heart.

      Unlikely. There is a phenomenon called commotio cordis which seems to be what you’re referring to, but the video (which looks more like over-acting to me, BTW) is not it. Commotio cordis basically puts the heart into ventricular fibrillation (VF), meaning it cannot beat in a coordinated fashion, which often leads to death. A person can be defibrillated out of VF (like with an electrical shock), but for some reason VF resulting from commotio cordis is peculiarly refractory to treatment. Plus when it happens, like in a fight, or when the batter is struck in the chest by a pitch, there rarely is an AED around, even these days.

      For those patient enough to have gotten this far, commotio cordis seems to happen only during a VERY short part of the cardiac cycle (this is why people who get hit in the chest don’t all drop like flies), about 10-30 milliseconds during the upstroke of the T-wave (essentially when the heart is electrically “recharging” itself for the next beat). The original research paper which elucidated the etiology (if not exactly the mechanism) of commotio cordis is very interesting, involving anesthetized pigs and a sort of a canon that fired wood spheres, croquet balls essentially, at the pig’s chest while synchronized to the ECG (with variable delay relative to the R-wave). Finally, commotio cordis should not be confused with contusio cordis which is just an obscure doctorly way of saying “a bruise to the heart.”

Carol Herman | July 7, 2013 at 2:06 pm

How come everybody avoids commenting on SEEING Trayvon’s brother in the flesh? Am I the only one who thinks the two brothers looked alike? What size was Jahvis. (What crazy mother plants these names on her newborns?)

Because of Dee-Dee, and her overwhelming neck, I’ve become somewhat “neck concious.” Jahvis’s neck is wide. So is his mom’s. Are these big-boned people? Angel Trayvon never came off as being big boned.

Jahvis’ voice was also deep. (He, too, did a Dee-Dee, answering questions in a hushed tone. But I thought if he only spoke naturally, his voice would have been deep. And, easily heard.)

Now that the case is beginning for the Defense, their first two witnesses were BLOWOUT SUCCESSES! Even if it is up to the jury to decide who is screaming … my money’s on the jurors finding it is Zimmerman.

I also think that Trayvon springing out at Zimmerman, who was unaware he was about to be attacked … While Zimmerman was talking to the cops. And, Trayvon was in “bragging mode” to Dee-Dee.

IF, yesterday, or today, West was able to Depose CRUMP … what does that mean, ahead? Isn’t this just a card a defense attorney would keep in his back pocket? If the Defense is ahead, why go after Dee-Dee’s story? (Of course, having an ace in your pocket is always nice. In some games it beats a Glock.)

    DriveBy in reply to Carol Herman. | July 7, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    Socio economic and political beliefs influence children’s names:

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/07/baby-names-reveal-parents-political-ideology/?intcmp=obnetwork

    Quote:
    Notably, the kinds of uncommon names chosen by upper-class liberals differed from the unusual names picked by people of lower socioeconomic status, Oliver said. Lower-status moms tend to invent names or pick unusual spellings of common names (Andruw instead of Andrew, for example).

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/07/baby-names-reveal-parents-political-ideology/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2YO0FSxmf

    graytonb in reply to Carol Herman. | July 7, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    There’s a family resemblance, but I wouldn’t have picked them out as brothers. Trayvon has a different father… maybe the lean comes from his side.
    Is his bio dad even alive? If so, strange that he hasn’t surfaced somewhere in the media.
    I certainly hope that the defense’s jury consultant has all his spidey senses fully operational and has an idea re his ‘ target ‘ juror…who is the opinion leader in that group?

    DriveBy in reply to Carol Herman. | July 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    Jahvis and Treyvon had different fathers; Tracy Martin appears freakishly tall (6’2″+). Jahvis appears to be of average height, perhaps 5’9″ – 5’11”, but Teyvon appears 6’0″-6’2″ in the 7/11 video. I don’t know. IMO Bernie put Jahvis on the stand because he was a “miniature” version of Treyvon; I believe that because his testimony was just conflicting and not definate, so no good reason to put him on.

    Treyvon measured 5’11” on the autopsy table, but rigor mortis had set in and muscles contract. Better if they have medical or school physical records of his actual living person height.

    Doesn’t matter all that much though. Regardless of this height versus length nonsense – George is still much shorter either way, and he does not have the same arm reach (for punching), and he was fat and out of shape compared to the teen. Now that I think of it, George really should have stayed in his truck, just for his own safety! Just saying…

      kittycat in reply to DriveBy. | July 7, 2013 at 2:56 pm

      George was a lot thinner at the time this happened. He’s gained weight now. Regardless, it was self-defense. Again, it’s all so stupid to even have a trial for this. A huge waste of money, time, and is only political.

        DriveBy in reply to kittycat. | July 7, 2013 at 3:12 pm

        George looked of average build in the photos taken by police, at the time. He looks huge today! But he sought medical care the next day after this happened and his BMI was recorded (IIRC) at 30, obese! He was a short, obese, young man, and Treyvon was a tall, athletic, young man – who circled George in a threatening way as George sat in his truck, and Treyvon placed his hand in his waistband (indicating a weapon) when he approached the truck. Definitely a potentially dangerous situation!!!!!

        George may have a Napoleon complex or something to have left the relative safety of his truck after all that happened. I’m not saying that George could not do it, and he did have a gun for self protection; I am just saying that it would have been wiser to remain in the truck and wait for the police that were en route. No?

          kentuckyliz in reply to DriveBy. | July 7, 2013 at 3:38 pm

          What I don’t get is that when GZ is telling the NEN dispatcher that the guy is circling GZ’s vehicle with his hand in his waistband, why doesn’t the dispatcher escalate the rating and send an officer immediately? The danger level just skyrocketed.

          Observer in reply to DriveBy. | July 7, 2013 at 4:41 pm

          Martin’s response when he first noticed Zimmerman watching him — going over to his truck and circling it while staring at Zimmerman menacingly, shows how “scared” Martin was of Zimmerman, right?

          Because that’s how all “scared kids” react when they’re in fear of their lives from a stranger, right?

          Uncle Samuel in reply to DriveBy. | July 7, 2013 at 5:13 pm

          Someone said GZ is wearing a bullet proof vest under his clothes.

          kentuckyliz in reply to DriveBy. | July 7, 2013 at 6:17 pm

          The bullet proof vest thing is easy to debunk. Just look at the photos of George taken that night, and the walk through video taken the next day. The dimensions of his pecs and belly under his shirt are the same. The police would have noted a bullet proof vest in their report if there was one, because that would be an unusual detail worth noting. #fail

          Harperman in reply to DriveBy. | July 7, 2013 at 7:40 pm

          Kentuckylz. I think you misunderstand. It has never been said that GZ was wearing a bullet proof vest on the night of the incident but is wearing one in the courtroom, which makes sense.
          By the way, the phrase “bullet proof vest” always irks me. There is no such thing as a bullet proof vest; there are only bullet resistant vests. Body armor is rated to resist up to certain calibers. For example a vest rated to stop up to a .44 magnum won’t hardly slow down a high powered rifle round such as a 30-06. The “bullet proof” vest is a myth. Modern body armor is just another stage in the centuries old battle between the armorers and the weapons makers.

        George was a lot thinner at the time this happened.

        The physician he saw weighed and measured him, and testified to the fact that the day after the incident he was 5’7″ and 204 pounds. His BMI was 31.

        That may have been “thinner” than what he is now, but that is still clinically obese.

        Having a BMI of 31 is only “of average build” if everyone else around you is clinically obese too.

      graytonb in reply to DriveBy. | July 7, 2013 at 2:56 pm

      Jaharvis Fulton was put on the stand to act as a counter presence to his less reputable brother. He seems to be a very solid young man, well spoken and in college, chosen to leave the impression that Trayvon could have had a similar path had he lived. He also heard the tape, so there was that….. and finally, he was called as an antidote to the Dee Dee testimony, to leave the impression that all TM’s influences weren’t low-life, foul-mouthed druggies.

        kentuckyliz in reply to graytonb. | July 7, 2013 at 3:41 pm

        They forgot to coach JF to talk in a meek, quiet, high pitched voice. He has a nice deep resonant voice. That’s the brother. It can help the jury understand that TM had a deep voice and overcome Jayne Surdyka’s misattributions. Even RJ said TM spoke first. That helps too, because Jayne said the first one to speak was the deep voice. It will help the jury correctly attribute the screams for help.

      I’m freakishly tall. 186.69 cm. Even more so when I attained that height around age 12. Back in 1956.

citizenjeff | July 7, 2013 at 2:39 pm

Excellent post, but if we fully embrace his logic, isn’t Prof. Jacobson perpetuating the greatest myth of all, that the dispatcher’s wishes/opinions matter? Just kidding. Sort of.

    TexasJew in reply to citizenjeff. | July 7, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    Right
    The dispatcher didnt live in that neighborhood, but Zimmerman and his family did.

    Saying pretty please is not a direct order from a police officer

    I’ve called the cops on several occasions and I always did exactly what the dispatcher advised. That just seems like common sense. The whole point of calling the dispatcher is to work with the police. If you’re going to work against them, don’t call in the first place.

    –bks

      citizenjeff in reply to bks. | July 7, 2013 at 6:15 pm

      Well, you’re awfully obedient. I hadn’t heard that only people who have blind faith in police dispatchers are entitled to report suspicious behavior. I always assumed that even people who think for themselves can notify cops of crime or possible crime.

        citizenjeff in reply to citizenjeff. | July 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm

        My initial comment was not intended to suggest the public should disregard everything a dispatcher says. My point is only that the dispatcher’s opinion about following Martin has zero legal relevance.

        kentuckyliz in reply to citizenjeff. | July 7, 2013 at 6:22 pm

        The NWP trainer lady was asked in defense CX if NWP participants are told that they cannot follow from a distance just to observe? She said no, they’re not told that. Just not to engage and confront. She kept emphasizing “you are the eyes and ears of the police department in your community” and then this dispatcher keeps on asking GZ questions requiring GZ to observe to be able to answer…even after the suspicious person made a menacing action towards GZ, possibly hinting at a weapon, even after the dispatcher acknowledges that he hears the door chimes…he keeps asking questions after the chimes! GZ is following his NWP training and encouragement to be the eyes and ears…eyes and ears…eyes and ears.

George Zimmerman and his family live in that community
He was afraid to give out the address of his house where his wife was
He was right to follow, if he wanted to
If some strange kid was wandering around my crime-ridden neighborhood, I sure as fuck would have

Then he was jumped and mugged

This pathetic joke should have never gone to trial

What really scares me is that a huge majority if the black community seems to think that mugging and beating someone should not result in the muggee protecting himself
They ignore the injuries to Zimmerman as trivial.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to TexasJew. | July 7, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    The hate-thugs are still targeting the other George Zimmerman family who was mistaken for the real GZ.

    EyesWideOpen in reply to TexasJew. | July 7, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    TJ, to your last point (which is so scarily accurate), here are some of the “explanations” I have heard made by Travyon’s enablers for GZ’s injuries:

    They were pre-existing
    They were intentionally self-inflicted after the shooting
    They were unintentionally self-inflicted (fall, gun recoil)
    They were too trivial to justify any response by GZ
    They were caused by the cops
    They were deserved because GZ was a “sissy” who “picked a fight and lost”
    GZ should have just “taken it like a man” because TM didn’t have a gun

    Laughable. And disgusting the lengths the gangsta-enablers will go to rationalize street violence and condemn anyone who dares defend themselves.

    I’m still struck by one (of many) particular head-shakers in the narrative of the prosecution and its lynch-mob proponents. They want us to believe or think that GZ “stalked, pursued, and hunted down TM”, killing him at close range after he had done so. Tell me this…how would it even be possible (even if he wanted to) for a pudgy 28 yo Hispanic to out run a lean 17 yo black male football player who was well out front and only 70 yards from his destination? Gimme a break.

      I am a non-gun person, yet even I know that the gun recoil proposition is a total joke.

      If it was a rifle, then yes, there would be a kickback. However, this was a pistol. I have used both and I do not remember any recoil with a pistol. I do remember the recoil in the rifle.

      On top of that, the facts and the angle of the shot counter this nonsense.

      There is no way that after the shot went off that the gun would recoil to the point that Zimmerman’s hand would shoot up into the air as a result of recoil, and that he would be bonked on the nose.

      It is a totally ludicrous suggestion… and I am not a gun owner!!

Btw, where is Andrew Branca’s weekend report? I thought he was going to cover Bao’s testimony. I’ve been looking forward to it. 🙁

    DriveBy in reply to rokiloki. | July 7, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Perhaps he’s become tired of responding to the Comments posted by people that point out it’s versus its typos and the like, so he is still proof reading it. 😉

    Harperman in reply to rokiloki. | July 7, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    So have I but the fellow has been putting in tremendous hours following this day after day. He deserves a day off!

    kentuckyliz in reply to rokiloki. | July 7, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    I bet Mr. Branca was very busy yesterday fulfilling the first shipment of book orders.

Trayvon’s ex girlfriend ‘Kay’ who also goes by the name ‘Kokainkay’ wrote on her Tumblr page “I remember those nights where I use to wait for him to call . I loved his deep voice”

Trayvon had a “deep” voice.

http://kokainekay.tumblr.com/post/19456778184/see-that-boy-rite-there-thats-my-friend

Rachel Jeantel testified; “The dude sound kinda like Trayvon. Trayvon do got that soft voice and that baby voice sometimes. So it could be, I don’t know. You know it’s not.”

Trayvon has a “soft” voice SOMETIMES. (obvious lie)

“You know it’s not” (critical!!)

Well if the voice isn’t Trayvons then it must be GZ’s. There was no one else there.

    graytonb in reply to WMMC. | July 7, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Just wow. That’s pretty frightening: A member of the Choom Gang wanted to work on airplanes?
    And ‘ wifey up ‘ with a woman whose screen name was Cocaine Kay.
    You can bet BDLR never had HER on his witness list.

    kentuckyliz in reply to WMMC. | July 7, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Her tweetstream is still public. She participated in the RT campaign to post GZ’s address.

    George W. Zimmerman [redacted], y'all know what to do.. RT this. He gone learn today.— Jamaican Jesus (@osamabinivan) July 1, 2013

      kentuckyliz in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 5:28 pm

      OK I’m tired of reading it…there’s 30k tweets in there, and mostly innocuous enough. Don’t take these selected tweets as if that’s all there is.

        kentuckyliz in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 7, 2013 at 5:32 pm

        To her credit, she posted tweets and retweets that support armed self defense and critical of the government trying to take away the guns from citizens. She’s on our side. 🙂

kentuckyliz | July 7, 2013 at 4:03 pm

I ain't fuckin til I see alot of white stuff .— poison. (@kokainekay__) July 1, 2013

Capehart’s point #3 about GZ defenders objecting to Trademark’s baby pictures and demanding that a picture of rapper “Game” be substituted is misdirection at its finest.

The publishing of TM’s juvenile photos by the Scheme Team was a deliberate ruse that really happened, but the demand that Game’s picture be shown in place of a real current picture of TM is dishonest reporting – unless of course, PolitiFact also admits to the juvenile picture ruse was happening (and continues to happen), even after appropriate photos were available. There were far more real and current pictures displayed than the fake “Game” email. Why didn’t PolitiFact mention that? For all we know, Crump and company started the chain.

The proof that GZ is innocent is that Jeantel never called the police, never even told anyone else about it (if she didn’t trust the police enough to call them).

TM and Jeantel spoke that night, what TM actually told her was “I am going to beat down that creepy @ss cracker who is looking at me and probably just called Five-Oh!!!!”

Jeantel: “Trayvon you be careful! Don’t be gettin’ your azz kicked!”

That’s why Jeantel never called the police, never told anyone. She knew Trayvon was going to get into an altercation because that’s exactly what TM told her he was going to do.

When Trayvon turned up dead (rather than the crazy @ss cracker) Jeantel had her “Oh shyte!” moment big-time.

Carol Herman | July 7, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Well, Marco100, Crump can be depo’ed by Don West. Permission was granted (I think by the appeals court overseeing Nelson). And, that it could have been done yesterday. Or today.

I have no idea how this works! Not a lawyer! But it’s possible the topic of “coaching” Dee-Dee Rachel Diamond Eugene, might come up?

Who requested the letter that got written in “cursive,” a language art that Dee-Dee, etc., does not know?

I think tomorrow’s turnout will be just fine. Lots and lots of people have begun tuning into the Live feed of this trial. O’Mara may, ahead, earn his reputation to be among this nation’s stars? (Or? He could flop.) Either way, I think the audience watching grows.

I’m looking forward to tuning in the trial, tomorrow. Where? Here at my computer. I don’t have a TV. But I’ve set links up so I can go directly to watching the testimony.

Uncle Samuel | July 7, 2013 at 5:25 pm

Love this sub-title:
‘Crump’ is the sound you hear when a bogus case hits the wall.

From now on, Crump will be famous.
His name will be on every lawyer’s tongue.
‘A Crump Case’ or ‘A Crumped-up Case’ will come to mean a case that has no merit, but has been subject to a pre-trial media blitz to drum up public sentiment.

Unless laws are changed to prevent such Crump Cr*p.

thats retarded sir | July 7, 2013 at 6:47 pm

This guy nails it. The jury instructions, if followed will acquit Zimmerman.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/t/story?id=19598422

    kentuckyliz in reply to thats retarded sir. | July 7, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    Interesting link…how to I get to page 2 of the article? Not on a touch device–just laptop. ???

    When they’ve lost Dan Abrams on a national ABC feed and detailed (and accurate) article, things may be going more poorly for the prosecution than the low information audience had previously thought. A good thing, IMO

Carol Herman | July 7, 2013 at 7:24 pm

I read somewhere that Tracy Martin (Trayvon’s dad), had given his son $100 before he left with Brandy Green, for the evening.

There’s only $40 in his pocket, per the medical examiner’s report(s).

Buying Skittles, Arizona Iced Tea in Watermelon flavor; plus 3 cheap cigars … doesn’t go through $60.

Alson, not mentioned here, exactly. But when Trayvon tried to buy 2 cigars, the counter clerks said no. Trayvon exits. But there a bills still in his hand. He seems to pass them off to 3 friends. One of whom removes his “hoodie?” to shake out his dark curly hair. This guy proffers the bills to the clerk for 2 cigars. But then turns back, again, to the clerk, for an additional cigar.

What’s that cost? A buck a cigar?

What happened to $60 of Trayvon’s $100 … that is NOT remaining in his pocket after his clothes are removed by the medical examiner’s staff?

There’s a wide open field, ahead, for O’Mara and West to enter into. (From O’Mara’s press conference I got the idea he’s gonna try to speed things up.) Eye-opening testimony ahead? Will judge little miss debbi nelson, suddenly start choosing strategy based on how she can use her gave to interfere with the upcoming flow? Stay tuned.

    franker01 in reply to Carol Herman. | July 7, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    Possibly he was accosted by some other White Hispanic on his way back home and was relieved of the other 50 bucks or so under which I would assume were harrowing circumstances?

    Actually, thinking about this, I’m not sure why the State and particularly Mr. Mantei haven’t brought this up before?

      Harperman in reply to franker01. | July 7, 2013 at 9:25 pm

      If hes was accosted by another White-Hispanic on the way home it was probably to buy the “filler” for those cigars! LOL

I sure did want to hear the case tomorrow, but I have to be gone for a while. Maybe I’ll get to hear some of it. Thank goodness for this place.

Henry Hawkins | July 7, 2013 at 7:56 pm

However the Zimmerman trial comes out, at some point one has to put the ultimate blame on George W. Bush and move on.

Andrew usually puts up two feeds so no need to go anywhere other than LI. Just saying… 🙂

http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/gallery/p2p-69997407/

In the photo of the brothers side by side TM appears to be the taller of the two.

[…] completely debunked this concept when it was assumed by Jonathan Capehart at WaPo, In busting Zimmerman myths, Jonathan Capehart perpetuates the greatest myth of all.  I emailed Capehart about it, he responded “fair point,” and as of this writing the […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend