The Department of Justice will be investigating the Trayvon Martin shooting, where an unarmed 17 year-old kid was shot by a 28 year-old white or Hispanic guy with a gun. There’s a lot of discussion about Florida’s “Shoot First” or “Stand Your Ground” law in that piece, but this guy pursued and confronted Trayvon. And, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m sure the lawyers will correct me in the comments, but back in the 60’s, weren’t the feds able to make a case about depriving civil rights or something like that to pursue a federal murder charge when state laws exempt an obvious case of murder, or at least when state authorities won’t prosecute?
Reader Interactions
177Comments
Comments are closed.
Schlemizel
As I recall the Fed has an even higher bar to make their case than the locals. But it just might be the local constabulary will be so put off by the Feds nosing around that they will charge Zimmerman (Who knew the German word for hotel owner signified Hispanic background?) just to get the Feds to go away.
This incident was evil even without the racial component that someone appears to want to muddy the water by portraying this as brown on black violence is just obscene.
TR
@Schlemizel:
That’s not how I read it. Seemed more like the old “Me? How could I be racist? I’m one-sixteenth Cherokee!”
Anyway, good for the DOJ. Not sure what they can do, but this needs investigating.
c u n d gulag
Coming soon to a PC near you – Conservative Blogger POV:
So, the Bl*ckity-black President is sending his Bl*ckity-black AG to frame the white guy for murdering that threatening teenage N*gger, when it was clearly self-defense?
Remember:
Skittle don’t kill people.
And cans of iced-tea don’t kill people.
People kill people.
And black people like to kill white people.
So, it’s clearly self-defense if you kill them first!
Tokyokie
That’s the tactic the feds used to prosecute the KKKers who murdered the civil rights workers in Philadelphia in 1964 after the state of Mississippi declined to go after them.
c u n d gulag
Btw – if Zimmerman were black, and Martin white, do you think there’d even be an investigation by the police, or FBI?
If there was, I guarantee you, it would have been a posthumous one.
Zagloba
Once the Feds get involved they aren’t just investigating the crime. They’re investigating the coverup too.
Linda Featheringill
I think it will come out that Mr. Zimmerman isn’t wrapped too tightly. But he qualified to have have a gun. Hooray.
Warren Terra
The ad in the sidebar is for tourism in Texas, from the office of the Governor. Texas has a Murderiffic “Stand Your Ground” law like the one Zimmerman is relying on in Florida – one that basically says that if you feel at all threatened, or like you might be threatened, you need not leave nor merely threaten to open fire if pressed, but are free to spray bullets with merry abandon.
gex
@c u n d gulag: Yeah, this seems to be the perfect issue for “states’ rights” to come up. Either way, conservative assholes win. Either you can hunt people now, or they get to whine about being oppressed.
I’ve come to realize that they often end up in win-win situations and I end up in lose-lose situations simply because they value some really awful shit. If they were any better judges of things, they would realize they are losing to the richer white guys.
Paula68154
@Zagloba:
Yes, the cover-up. I missed that. Great point.
Soonergrunt
@Linda Featheringill: I think it’s very likely that we’re going to learn that Zimmerman applied for one or more police academies and was turned down as temperamentally unsuitable.
This is the case frequently with these gung-ho types in neighborhood watches and mall security and so on.
LAC
Those 911 tapes are damning and heartbreaking. That lying piece of shit needs to be locked up and a whole bunch of bozos on that force need to be tossed out. Oh, yeah you feel threatened, so let’s chase after the kid. Makes sense…
Schlemizel
@c u n d gulag:
But it wasn’t a white guy killing a black guy – it was a brown guy killing a black guy. So no worries ya know, those people are doing that all the time.
The car pool discussion after the story putting so much emphasis on the Hispanic angle ended with the only guy as cynical as I am saying. “well, of course this story is unusual now, if he was Hispanic he should have used a knife not a gun!”
4tehlulz
Florida: Where following someone = standing you ground.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Looks like there was a sound witness, at least. A young lady was on the phone with Trayvon as all this went down, and apparently he tried to run away from the man who was ‘following him’, but Zimmerman caught up with him, they scuffled before Trayvon was murdered by this fool with a gun.
mistermix
@Linda Featheringill: The qualification to have a gun in Florida is an instant background check, regular pulse and normal respiration, so that’s not much of a bar.
rlrr
@mistermix:
But an armed society is a polite society, or something.
smedley
It’s the Bush Doctrine, Charlie!
Rosalita
I read somewhere that Zimmerman had a habit of calling 911…
Gex
@LAC: Because obviously someone trying to leave your vicinity is a terrible threat.
Dear Tough Guys,
If you have to run down and catch the person who is “threatening” you, you should just point that gun at yourself.
Kirk Spencer
The thing that’s going to bite Zimmerman and the police, I think, is the law itself. They’re all claiming he’s protected by the “stand your ground” law. Unfortunately:
chopper
@Warren Terra:
from what i remember of the TX and FL ‘shoot first and ask questions later act’s your only legal requirement if you’re in public is to yell out HE’S COMING RIGHT FOR US! before you shoot the guy.
TR
@Kirk Spencer:
Even the Republican author of the law has said it wasn’t meant for cases like this.
Joseph Nobles
A good point made by David Waldman on Twitter:
Barry
@c u n d gulag: “Btw – if Zimmerman were black, and Martin white, do you think there’d even be an investigation by the police, or FBI?”
Yes, the police would be over the shooter, and would prosecute as a homicide. Probably regardless of the initial evidence.
Are you actually suggesting that police departments ignore black on white crime?
Narcissus
I just saw on metafilter where Zimmerman says “Fucking coon” on the 911 call, so I went and listened to it, and that is exactly what he says. Holy shit. How is this not just murder?
amk
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): Is that why the county police are suddenly unable to locate his cellphone ?
Punchy
Fixed for clarity on how it’s realistically interpreted. Because if the races were reversed, you’d better believe this guy’s looking at murder 1 and Old Sparky.
jibeaux
@Kirk Spencer: Yeah, I can’t really see how even the most Chuck Norris of self-defense laws can be interpreted to mean to you can chase after an unarmed person half your size who hasn’t threatened you in any way or committed any crime. Did they ever find the kid’s phone?
TR
@Narcissus:
Seriously? I thought that was a racial slur only used by octogenarians.
Joseph Nobles
@Kirk Spencer: Thanks for that quote:
Clearly Trayvon Martin had a right to be where he was, and Zimmerman has no defense to be found in this law.
Rosalita
@Kirk Spencer: #FUCKINGFLORIDA, it’s right up there with Texas as a modern day OK Corral.
rachel
@Zagloba: Good. This knot of snakes needs to be cleared out pronto.
dave
1. I support the Feds getting involved, but only to the extent that they are reviewing the conduct of the local police. This is a local crime and should be handled locally unless it is discovered that there is a racial component to the local police investigation (or lack thereof).
2. I have my suspicions about what actually happened here (and I am sure they are identical to those of the majority of people here).
3. However, I really, really, really, really wish we would all wait for the facts to come out before stating with certitude what happened here. This happens every time a crime makes the national news. It pisses me off every time.
4. I also don’t udnerstand why I never hear from other liberals outraged by this case about the strong supporting evidence which supports Zimmerman’s version of events. Specifically, that he had a large wound in the bank of his head, grass stains on his back, and a bloody nose. Certainly, these pieces of evidence support his story that he was in an altercation and was defending himself. Again, I can think of some scenarios in which he could have acquired these injuries without being in physical danger and I actually think a number of these are plausible. I also loathe the Florida self defense statute. But I just wonder why we cant be honest about the complexities of this case given the limited facts available.
El Cid
When will the liberals stop? When will it be enough?
So if you raise all this fuss and finally make it illegal to shoot black kids, what next? You won’t be satisfied.
Will you try to outlaw stabbing them? Beating them? You’d deny a community the right to beat black children as they see fit, even if that means sometimes you have to beat them to death?
There are already enough laws regulating the treatment of black people, we just need to make sure they’re enforced; we don’t need to be expanding big government to be looking over the shoulder of any white person who uses his or her own conscience to determine when is a good time to beat or stab or shoot a black kid, dead if need be.
Narcissus
http://www.metafilter.com/114014/Trayvon-Martin-shot-by-George-Zimmerman#4248698
liberal
@dave:
LOL. Man, you’re a stupid f*ck.
jibeaux
@dave: Dude, if Mr. Zimmerman were in an altercation then he fucking CAUSED it. He called 911 to say he was going after Trayvon, the dispatcher told him not to, and Trayvon called a friend to say he was being chased! Good grief, you’ve got to go a long-ass way out of reality before you can arrive at any version of this story that squares with those phone calls in which a 140 pound teenager without a violent bone in his body and armed with Taste the Rainbow decides to provoke an altercation with a much larger armed man who is fucking CHASING him.
Rosalita
True, but on the other hand, Treyvon probably felt like he needed to defend HIMself and it sounds like Zimmerman ran after him? You are correct, we need more facts.
Warren Terra
@Joseph Nobles:
You’ve got it backwards: it’s Zimmerman that had no obligation to retreat under this horrible law. Basically, this law means that you’re allowed to shoot someone in cold blood unless you are trespassing at the time.
Cassidy
@liberal: And if I’m a 14 y/o football player and some fat, white guy comes out me out of the dark, there’s a good chance he gets punched when I realize his intent is no good.
Gex
@dave: Audio is audio, dude.
amk
@dave: Your ‘concern’ for the welfare of the shooter is duly noted. I bet you would have shown the same concern for the due process of law if it had been other way around.
Now FO.
chopper
@dave:
you can’t argue ‘self defense’ when you chase somebody down and start a fight with them.
quannlace
I just don’t understand it-Regardless of the law, how can you shoot someone down and the police simply takes your word for it that it was self-defense??
*************
dr. bloor
Depends on what part of the sequence of actions you’re focusing on. Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher not to pursue Martin, instructions he obviously ignored. He put himself in jeopardy.
Satanicpanic
@dave: Dude, who cares about #4? None of that would have happened if he had stayed in his car. A girl who was on the phone with Martin said that Martin was trying to run away and Zimmerman ambushed him. Zimmerman is able to shoot Martin because he was losing the fight he instigated? What?
jonas
@c u n d gulag: sounds a lot like Llap Goch.
liberal
@Cassidy:
Sorry, edited my comment, probably after you made yours.
What stupid f*ck dave doesn’t understand is that the general definition of “assault” doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve actually also attacked the person.
I’m pissed off because while clicking around I found a thread at the Miami Herald where some stupid right-wing twit was defending the law and raising the same stupid “we don’t know all the facts” bullshit.
jonas
@quannlace: In Florida, apparently when you’re Caucasian and the guy you shot is black.
liberal
@Satanicpanic:
dave’s IQ is too low to understand the “nuance” you’ve brought to the debate.
Cassidy
@quannlace: It’s never about what they believe,but about what they can prove. I don’t doubt for a second that at least a few of the officers doing the investigation know that Zimmerman murdered this kid. But, they can’t prove it.
liberal
@Kirk Spencer:
I don’t think it’s at all obvious that he’s not protected by the SYG law. Apparently it’s not the first time that people who under a sane legal system would have been charged have not been charged, AFAICT from reading around.
Face
Ha ha! I hope this was snark!
Yeah, the guy picks the fight, then realizes he’s losing the fight, so he’s justified in winning the fight he picked by capping the guy he attacked? Makes a lot of sense, Dave.
Can I hit my wife, wait for her to swing back in defense, then blow her away and claim the shampoo bottle she chucked at me represented a danger to myself?
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Barry: The suggestion is that there wouldn’t be a need for one. Because the locals would have already held the preliminary hearing by now, assuming that they didn’t take it directly to a grand jury for indictment, which is more likely.
Barry
@dave: “However, I really, really, really, really wish we would all wait for the facts to come out before stating with certitude what happened here. This happens every time a crime makes the national news. It pisses me off every time.”
As far as we can tell, the known facts are that the local police are accessories after the crime. They didn’t secure the scene, they didn’t collect evidence, and the chief of police is openly mocking everybody about it.
liberal
@quannlace:
People here want to blame the police, and I would like to join them because that would mean maybe that idiot will do some hard time. But AFAICT the would-be defendent needs to merely claim that they felt threatened, blah blah blah. I know folks upthread have reasonably quoted other sections of the law saying that’s not nearly enough in this case, but reading all the news about the case makes it seem like the guy really won’t do any time under FL law.
TooManyJens
@dave:
No shit. We know about that. These pieces of evidence support his story that he was in an altercation. Every other piece of evidence strongly indicates that he started the altercation, that it was 100% unnecessary and his fault, and that if Martin hit him it was Martin who was acting in self-defense and trying to protect himself from this crazy guy who was following him for no reason.
Cermet
@dave: Martin has zero history of violence (so far) and was in an area he had every right to be in. There is zero evidence he was the one who first attacked anyone. Zimmermen’s injuries only prove he was involved in a fight yet the facts prove he approched Martin (why? Martin has every right to be there. Now there is zero proof Martin attacked him but only that there was a fight. So, while Zimmermen is the only one now alive, of course he will claim he was attacked since he killed Martin – maybe true but not very likely (really, give a motive for Martin to attack Zimmermen) unless Zimmermen confrounted Martin and started the whole affair – in which case, self defense is not valid especially if he was armed and Martin was not. Zimmermen looks like he was hunting for a fight – maybe not but the phone recordings will tell a lot.
Rosalita
@Face:
Sounds like a win in Florida.
liberal
@quannlace:
The law is the law. This is the natural byproduct of Second Amendment fundamentalism.
Bulworth
The State of Florida is also investigating, so hopefully they will draw up charges.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/shooting-of-florida-youth-prompts-calls-for-federal-investigation/2012/03/19/gIQA1HZ6NS_story.html
scav
My gut instinct is these’s something very odd with the cop end of things. Their behavior is odd. Could it be as simple as looking into the background of the first / early investigating officer that may have derailed any further investigation and they’ve just been protecting him ever since? But the whole relationship with Zimmerman thing is off, what was it? Was he an irritant? Pet Local Actionman? Pet Loon? If they have internal doubts about him earlier and didn’t do anything, that could also explain they’re covering their butts when he did do something horrendous. Cop behavior under the various Pet theories is pretty obvious, but why would they take it so far? I just think there’s something more in there.
amk
to sh dave, read it.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-should-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/?mobile=nc
Mudge
Let’s see. Zimmerman calls 911 40+ times in a month and a half from a gated community. I assume these are not illegal parking calls. Then he sees Trayvon and follows, against specific advice by the 911 operator, and confronts him while carrying a gun.
This reminds me of Atrios’ comment the other day (to paraphrase) that everyone he has ever known who was a gun nut had a wet dream of killing someone they viewed as evil, preferably darker than they.
Florida has apparently made wet dreams both real and legal.
Dork
Just wait until Zimmerman claims that his religion allows him to wax young Black teens. Religious persecution, bitchez. 1st Amendment. William Donahue will be on the teevee barking about Obama’s War on Whites Killing Blacks.
liberal
@Warren Terra:
Sadly, I think you’re right, in an “is not ought” sense.
We don’t need no stinkin’ well-regulated militia!
joeyess
Look, the guy was a cop-wanna-be. I’ve heard reports that he applied to become a police officer and was physically unqualified and didn’t pass the basic tests given during the application process. He’s had at least one run-in with the law, he volunteered and, from what I can glean, was an enthusiastic member of the neighborhood watch program in his community. He made over 45 calls to 911 in his position of authority and almost all of them were complaints that implicated people of color.
Sounds to me like the very definition of Machismo.
c u n d gulag
@Barry:
No, I’m suggesting that if an adult black male shot a white teenager in the head, that the cops who came on the scene would have shot first, and asked questions later.
I think 42 bullets would have done the trick – one more than in NYC’s Diallo shooting.
liberal
@Cermet:
IMHO based on the evidence, Martin’s history is irrelevant: it’s clear Zimmerman started the altercation.
joeyess
@dave:
For that matter, I could think of some scenarios in which he could have acquired these injuries in a separate altercation with someone else.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@joeyess: I’d love to see a cite for those reports. It’s exactly the situation I expected would be shown, since the police try (wiothout 100% success, clearly) to screen out those who are temperamentally unsuitable. But I’ve yet to see any evidence of that with Zimmerman.
Ash Can
Can you imagine the Bush-Gonzales DoJ getting involved in this?
handsmile
Perhaps this may seem mere pedantry to some, but it would be appropriate for mistermix to amend his post above to spell correctly the victim’s first name: Trayvon.
Punchy
Win.
El Cid
Would you people rather that white males lose fights that they pick? That if they start following people around and harassing them and a fight arises with an underage victim, they just get beaten up?
What other respectable way of ending such a situation is there other than shooting the person you have assaulted?
There are huge implications going on here, and I think you people are ignoring them.
joeyess
@Mudge:
This.
AA+ Bonds
@TR:
I fail to understand how this is socially allowed anymore except for very poor white people trying to bilk the government (b/c get that money)
And yet, like, every celebrity promptly announces they are part Cherokee or something
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@El Cid: Clearly. I should have paid more attention.
/snark, in keeping with the comment.
liberal
@joeyess:
No, really, from the comment you linked, this:
rikyrah
good news.
at the very least, the DOJ being involved will get all the basic questions, and how ridiculous the police department will be obvious
LAC
@dave:
Dave, with all due respect, fuck you and fuck the horse you rode on. The tapes are damning, that fuck had a gun, that poor child was armed with snacks. There is no compassion. It is has been a whole fucking month and the police were dragging their heels about releasing those tapes because that bullshit story that asshole was peddling was about to blow up. So, if you want to fly down and hold Zimmerman’s hand, be my guest.
Barry
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): “The suggestion is that there wouldn’t be a need for one. Because the locals would have already held the preliminary hearing by now, assuming that they didn’t take it directly to a grand jury for indictment, which is more likely.”
A preliminary hearing after the police deliberately botched the case?
BGK
@scav:
I don’t know enough about Sanford, but this may be a case of the state-level NRA stooges handling local police a sh!t sandwich. The law also contains these provisions:
Meaning someone who exercises “self defense” and is “wrongly” arrested can get one of the legion of bottom-feeders in every Florida telephone directory sue the @ss off the arresting agency. My guess is the Sanford police are being terminally cowardly, rather than malevolent, in the absence of sound legal advice.
liberal
@Schlemizel:
[emphasis added]
Agreed. Murder is apparently now legal in FL.
ant
i think trey was trying to make it look like he had a gun, when he was walking towards the suv. Then george put his pistol on display, and trey ran.
i also think there was a struggle to gain control over the pistol just before trey got shot. sure sounds like it. also sounds like more than one shot was fired.
if george had innocently ran trey over with his suv while adjusting his radio, or cause he dropped a cig or something, he would be arrested and held to account for “poor judgement”.
but the police are arguing that the law doesn’t allow something similar here. i dont think that’s right.
jibeaux
My favorite details of dave’s post was the “fellow liberals” part. Why he left out “and my fellow African-Americans” is a headscratcher, though.
Barry
@joeyess: “For that matter, I could think of some scenarios in which he could have acquired these injuries in a separate altercation with someone else.”
Good point. I’d be asking for a friend to whack me a couple of times. And since (from as far as we could tell), the police didn’t treat this like a potential homicide, adding/tampering with evidence would be difficult to prove.
muddy
@joeyess:
Actually my thought was that he slipped and fell on his back, thus getting the mud and hitting his head. I bet he smacked himself in the nose with his gun afterwards to make it look like a more even fight.
Ecks
@rlrr:
FTFY
Barry
@BGK: (quoting FL law): “but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.”
It sounds like there was probable cause, especially as the shooter chased the victim, and did so against the advice of the 911 dispatcher.
And I’ll believe that the police were acting in good faith when I hear that their behavior here was standard FL police procedure for handling lethal shootings.
justawriter
FIFY
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Barry: I was responding to this:
As an interpretation of what c u n d gulag was in fact suggesting whe asking if the FBI would get involved, as clarified in this post:
@Barry:
No, I’m suggesting that if an adult black male shot a white teenager in the head, that the cops who came on the scene would have shot first, and asked questions later.
We’re all saying the same thing. I just wasn’t clear. If it had been black shooter, white dead guy, the shooter would have been indicted already, because there would have been an investigation showing what we all know happened here, if the facts were identical but the races reversed.
jibeaux
@BGK: That #3 applies to civil suits. It’s difficult in any jurisdiction to successfully sue cops. Plus, the local cops didn’t follow standard protocol by not drug and alcohol testing Zimmerman, and they “corrected” a witness statement regarding which one of them was screaming. I think they are far from victims of state law here.
scav
@BGK: Could be. Craven and scared of phone calls is not exactly a winning combination for the next Brave Boys in Blue PR campaign. If true, that would definitely be something worth hauling out into the public debate. And if the Law is written so as to allow or promote/allow either this behavior and/or outcome, that too needs to be hauled out and stomped on publicslly.
Elizabelle
Haunted by Trayvon’s photo. Handsome young man.
Orlando Sentinel Columnist Beth Kassab: “Stand your ground” law goes too far
They need to trim this NRA-supported “Castle” law way back, or repeal it.
BGK
Please don’t equate my assertion of cowardice with good faith by the Sanford police. My own local keystone cops have, in non-lethal situations, cracked enough heads and such to have paid out an appreciable fraction of their annual budget. I also worked for the local county government and been driven to insanity by the routine, chickensh!t @ss covering, for things not even in the same galaxy of importance, as this case. I could easily see a clock-watching police chief deliberately botch an investigation – yes, even this badly – for the same reason. A sin of omission is still a sin.
ohsuzanna
My view is that there are two critical facts that have currently been disclosed to the public and they are both in Zimmerman’s 911 call:
1. Zimmerman first says “These assholes, they always get away.” (talking about the alleged criminals who come to his neighborhood)
2. The Dispatcher specifically asks Zimmerman if Zimmerman is following the as yet unidentified kid and Zimmerman says “Yep”. The Dispatcher then SPECIFICALLY said “Okay, we don’t need you to do that,”
Even as crazy as the “Stand Your Ground” law may be, I think that this info provides evidence that Zimmerman’s action falls outside of that law. Zimmerman was actively pursuing Trayvon Martin. Going after someone who is moving away from you is not standing your ground in any circumstance.
Scott
I hope folks in Florida are drenching their legislators with calls to demand they repeal this law. Never seemed to have any purpose other than legalizing murder. Maybe something high-profile like this will get them to throw it out.
Redshift
@jibeaux:
Heh. On Ed Shultz (which Ms. Redshift sometimes watches), they relay Twitter messages to the show in the crawl. I was amused that someone managed to fit “I am a liberal, but…” into 140 characters along with a message supporting the FL law (while deploring this use of it, of course.)
So someone was smart enough to manage that, but not smart enough to know that leading off with that is a flashing sign telling any actual liberal that you’re a sock puppet…
joeyess
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
Yeah, I shouldn’t have written that. I heard this report on Al Sharpton’s show the other day just before I was heading out to work, poor assertion at best by me. An unsubstantiated rumor at worst and I shouldn’t have continued it’s spread.
Sorry.
With that behind me, I still have to say that I distrust any state that would empower anyone that is enthusiastically his own armed, one man neighborhood watch group and given license to shoot to kill if he merely “feels threatened”. That’s a recipe for disaster and disaster is exactly what was the result of this terrible law.
Elizabelle
Kay put up a post on Beth Kassab’s column the same moment I posted here.
Kay’s discussion next thread.
joeyess
@liberal: ha ha ha ha……. no it doesn’t. On my end it goes to Encyclopedia Britannica and it’s definition of Machismo.
Here’s the link again…
joeyess
@liberal: Oh, I see. No no…… I was referring the quotation and specifically my emphasis in it.
Also, too, give me a fucking break, I was up until 5am and had to take my Mattie Moonie Toons to get spayed this morning at 7am… 2 hours sleep and working on my second cup of coffee just before I clean this pig-sty of a house and then drive to Topeka Kansas. Topeka Kansas!
Get off my ass and get off of my lawn!!!
Why? Shut up, that’s why!
Provider_UNE
Going after someone who is moving away from you is not standing your ground in any circumstance.
They’ll just change the definition which will be accompanied by a video of Randy Moss in full flight down the sideline.
I have a feeling when all is said and done, it is not just gonna be Zimmermans head that will roll.
.
liberal
@joeyess:
Heh. Up too much last night, too. In my case, it was young human daughters.
Cacti
@quannlace:
When the shooter describes the recipient of the bullets as a “f*cking c**n”.
liberal
@joeyess:
God, that place is a shithole. My best friend moved there years ago. Economy seems amazingly nondiversified, entire state seems like a cultural wasteland, it’s basically one large drained swamp, etc etc etc…
OzoneR
Waiting for Climate Act or whoever to come and tell us how Obama sucks because he didn’t make a speech about this, even if DOJ is directly involved.
Sly
You’re probably thinking of the murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwermer in 1964. Their killers (and those who conspired with them) were investigated and prosecuted by the FBI under the Force Act of 1870, a reconstruction-era law that was designed to damage the Klan by, among other things, making it a Federal crime to deny someone their voting rights on account of race through violence and intimidation. It was one of several statutes passed by Congress as “enforcement legislation” of the 14th Amendment and rapidly fell into disuse after Reconstruction was abandoned.
Johnson wanted to go after the Klan with a vengeance, so he pressured Hoover into launching an investigation into those murders (using the Force Act as a pretext) and used the murders as political capital for getting the Civil Rights Act passed. It’s the Civil Rights Act and the Federal Civil Rights law of 1969 that pretty much form the backbone of modern Federal law with respect to hate crimes.
If anything, those are the laws that the Feds would use to prosecute Zimmerman, though there is a high burden on the prosecution to prove intent in these kinds of cases. They’re probably going to look into a violation of the Matthew Shepard Act.
joeyess
@liberal: You didn’t have them spayed this morning though, right?
cmorenc
@ant:
With what? A pack of skittles? A can of iced tea lacking even the weapon of carbonation to fizz at Zimmerman at close range?
No, here’s the most likely scenario. Zimmerman relentlessly followed Martin with the car until he had Martin momentarily in check to stop and get out of the car to apprehend Martin from escaping before the police would arrive. Zimmerman attempted to physically restrain Martin, Martin pushed Zimmerman back hard when this happened, knocking Zimmerman over, whereupon Zimmerman pulled out his heat and zapped Martin. The screams were the moment Martin realized Zimmerman was pulling out a gun on him and meant to shoot.
Elizabelle
@scav: re your comment about something being “off” with the police
Some interesting tidbits from a Miami Herald story: first item:
dave
@liberal: F you pal.
I understand her nuance perfectly (and I agree with it completely). You (and others) obviously don’t understand my nuance, which I spelled out in very simple language.
I think Zimmerman is a stupid moron who, at best, made a grievous and inexcusable error in judgment. I think he is (based on the “facts”) almost certainly morally culpable for what happened. I also think that none of us has any fucking idea what really happened and yet we all run around pretending we do. It pisses me off.
Based on the evidence we do have, it is very possible to construct a million different scenarios. In some plausible scenarios Zimmerman was 100% justified under Florida law, in others he is a cold blooded murderer, in others it somewhere in between.
As it stands, although I personally suspect he is guilty of at least negligent homicide, I don’t think its beyond the pale to believe that there is some reasonable doubt as to whether he is guilty of any crime under Florida law.
I strongly believe that we, as a society, should be very careful in judging people guilty in the court of public opinion. The list of innocent people whose lives have been ruined by being convicted in the media is long and sobering. Just off the top of my head:
1. Cary Condit
2. Richard Ricci (Elizabeth Smart Case – died in prison)
3. Duke Lacrosse Players
4. Melinda Duckett (committed suicide)
5. Richard Jewell
rikyrah
I’ve been thinking about Trayvon, from his POV. He’s in a place, not his home. He sees this crazy ass White man, over 100 pounds bigger than him, at night, coming after him….why the fuck wouldn’t he be scared out of his mind…and this is even before he knew about the gun.
WHAT, in the history of Black folk in THIS country, if his parents had taught him anything, would make any of our young people act differently?
Moonbatman
Thank Gaia this was some wingnut and not Law Enforcement.
So the DOJ and Police union don’t have to cover it up.
Elizabelle
Second from the Miami Herald story:
Zimmerman’s profiling skills apparently match his judgment.
dave
Again,
I personally think the most likely scenario is that Zimmerman is a racist fuck who assumed Martin was some street thug and shot him despite being in no physical danger.
However, I am astounded that no one can even acknowledge that there is even a possibility that Zimmerman, while showing extremely poor judgment, did not commit a crime under Florida law?
Is it not even possible that Martin initiated the physical altercation, tackled Zimmerman to the ground and punching him in the face? Is it not possible that Zimmerman is both a racist fuck and was also reasonably concerned for his safety so as to justify his use of force under (idiotic) Florida law?
Why is simply acknowledging these possibilities deserving of “fuck yous” from the commentariat?
aimai
@dave:
A man who has a car and can retreat and drive the fuck away can never have been in fear for his life. Never.
aimai
Moonbatman
@dave:
You forgot
Stevens Guilty On All Seven Counts
by John Cole
ruemara
@dave: Fuck you, you sack of crap.
dave
Also,
Even if Martin did attack Zimmerman and put Zimmerman in reasonable fear of danger, this does not mean that Martin “deserved” to die. It, at most, would mean that Zimmerman’s actions were legally (although not morally) justified under Florida law.
Nylund
I don’t want to encourage rampant speculation, but it really seems like we’ve got a situation where some fat racist* guy with a gun thinks he’s tough, follows and confronts a much fitter kid, get’s into a punching and shoving fight, kid starts winning the fight, so fat tough guy shoots him. [I’ll make no claim as to who escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical].
I don’t know enough about Florida’s stand your ground fight, but if it’s legal to engage in a fist fight after an argument you started then shoot and kill someone when you start losing that fist fight, it’s a pretty messed up law.
If that’s the case, it sounds like I could just track down someone I didn’t like, start arguing with them and taunting them until they reach a point where they took a swing at me, then just shoot them dead and get off without any consequences. Heck, it’s not even clear that you have to wait for them to throw the first punch since, well, after they’re dead, your version of events is the only version left and you can say whatever you want to say.
*I say racist due to reports I’ve read that have Zimmerman using words and phrases like “coon” and “these guys always get away,” on the 911 calls, but I’m having trouble tracking down the 911 transcripts to confirm all these statements.
dave
@aimai: I agree 100%. But unfortunately Florida law does not.
Elizabelle
Third, from the Miami Herald: interview with a resident “chagrined” at the changes in his neighborhood:
Zimmerman made 46 calls to 911 since January 1, 2011.
Mouse Tolliver
@dave:
All this proves is that Martin tried to defend himself when he was confronted by a gun wielding crackpot.
dave
Excellent argument. I am convinced.
prufrock
Shorter Dave:
Fucking Occam’s Razor, how does it work?
Laertes
Your problem, dave, is that you’re committing the logical fallacy of “giving known liars the benefit of the doubt.”
We know that Zimmerman’s story about Martin attacking him while he innocently tried to read a street sign is bullshit. We know this for three reasons:
1. It’s ridiculous on its face.
2. Zimmerman, on tape, states his intention to pursue Martin.
3. A witness who spoke with Martin on the phone during the confrontation says that Martin was fleeing Zimmerman.
Given all that, your insistence that we accept as true the rest of Zimmerman’s not-yet-disproven account of the incident is unreasonable.
rikyrah
@aimai:
AMEN
El Cid
I don’t think people are unwilling to ‘admit’ that under this law Zimmerman may have committed no crime. They just may not restrain themselves to this question.
One response to the point that Zimmerman’s actions could have been entirely consistent with this FL law could be “so what?” And that’s actually a fine point.
There have been all sorts of laws within which people have been in compliance doing all sorts of things around the world over the years. It doesn’t mean that people discussing a huge variety of situations are unfamiliar with the notion that being in compliance with terrible laws can happen.
xian
@Redshift: as devolution continues, they will next tell us things like “as a lifelong Libtard from the Democrat party, I …”
dave
I agree. I don’t think Zimmerman’s evidence proves his innocence. However, Zimmerman doesn’t have the burden of proof. He only has to prove that there is reasonable doubt. I think the evidence to date rises to that level.
I am also uncomfortable with substituting my judgment for that of the investigators who were able to interview Zimmerman and assess his credibility and compare his story with the evidence. I look forward to the results of the federal investigation which should either confirm or deny the quality of the local police investigation and conclusions.
Laertes
It’s also a grave error to give those investigators the benefit of the doubt. If you’d been keeping up on the case, you’d be aware that the conduct of the local PD has been somewhere betweeen “bumbling incompetence” and “deliberate sabotage.”
dave
Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply to criminal proceedings. I agree that the most likely scenario is that Zimmerman is guilty of at least negligent homicide or 2nd degree murder.
However, the state has to prove, not just that this is the most likely scenario, but that this is THE scenario “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is a high standard.
xian
@dave: you seem *concerned*.
dave
You are right that I am not aware of all the facts of the case. The version of Zimmerman’s story that you recount doesn’t seem plausible (assuming the opposing witness is believable and certain of what he/she witnessed). You may also be right that the local police have been bumblingly incompetent. I just don’t think we have sufficient trustworthy facts to make that judgment conclusively.
I am glad the feds are going to do their own investigation and I look forward to the results. I just wish (futilely it seems) that everyone could dial down their outrage until the facts are established.
shortstop
@Cassidy: Why do you think they’re having such a hard time proving it, Cassidy? Think the way they’ve handled the case might have something to do with that?
Emma
@dave: You mean the investigator another policeman complained about? Or the ones who lied about the story? At the very least, the chief of police is a liar because he claimed the 911 tapes supported Zimmerman’s view and when they were released they proved the absolute opposite. BTW, the tapes were released under the authority of the mayor, not the chief of police, who had originally refused.
Every new bit of news that comes out emphasized how badly handled this whole thing was. Benefit of the doubt my tochis.
shortstop
@dave: Hey, and maybe Martin was actually following Zimmerman instead of the other way around, but Martin was lying to his friend on the phone about it. Or maybe Zimmerman was following Martin, but Martin was lobbing Skittles at him, instigating an altercation in which Zimmerman was forced, regretfully, to defend himself from candy with bullets. And Zimmerman forgot to mention that to the 911 dispatcher. Maybe Zimmerman got confused and told the dispatcher he was following Martin, but really he meant that Martin was chasing him. But he got tongue tied and didn’t say it right when he was asked.
What? It could’ve happened that way. After all, we have none of the facts yet.
Tool.
Emma
@Cassidy: They could if they had investigated! They did not. They in fact took the man’s word and DID NOT investigate. It wasn’t until 3 weeks later, when the whole thing hit the fan, that they seem to have made a half-arsed attempt at covering it up.
liberal
@dave:
Right back atcha, moran.
liberal
@xian:
Yeah, his initial post was classic concern trolling.
What a douche.
liberal
@dave:
Fuck you, moron. The relevant facts have been established: to wit, Z initiated a confrontation. Shove your stupidity and your concern trolling up your arse.
liberal
@dave:
Absent the idiotic SYG law, it’s an open-and-shut manslaughter case, at the least.
But low-IQ concern troll doesn’t know the background facts to the case, and moreover can’t seem to pull his head out of his ass.
dave
@liberal: “Absent the idiotic SYG law, it’s an open-and-shut manslaughter case, at the least.”
I agree. I have said this several times. Yet somehow you managed not to notice. And yet I am the “low-IQ concern troll”
Dork
We get your point, Dave. The n#gger had it coming. Facts and stuff seem to maybe, possibly support that, but only maybe, so lets wait for facts, even though you feel the need to to post 27 times indignant that peeps think you’re in an idiot, b/c the facts have emerged that show that indeed, the n#gger did not have it coming.
Your concern has been noted.
cckids
@Laertes:
This. Especially since, in the past week, witnesses are coming forward to say that the police have either ignored, downplayed or refused to take their statements. Something is deeply f*cked up with the whole story.
Joel
@jibeaux: Liars often provide too many details, don’t they?
Cassidy
@Emma: Well, yeah. I completely agree. I was just answering the question I responded to.
Argive
I can’t wait to see what nonsense the NRA cooks up in response to this tragedy. Unless I miss my guess, they’re kind of backed into a corner here. Can they defend the “stand your ground” law without defending Zimmerman? I guess the answer is probably, but it will require some very fine language on their part.
An armed society cannot be a polite society if the people who choose to be armed are not polite. We really don’t need neighborhood watch captains who all think that they’re Ethan Edwards or John McClane.
Paul in KY
@dave: If you bash the back of your head on a convenient wall, you can get that head injury.
Why don’t you try it?
TenguPhule
dave
@Dork:
I was going to stop posting at this point but this statement is fucking outrageous and I cannot let it stand. You should be ashamed of yourself. Point out to me anywhere where I said anything even remotely like this. In fact, I said the exact fucking opposite of this.
In comment # 122 I said: “Even if Martin did attack Zimmerman and put Zimmerman in reasonable fear of danger, this does not mean that Martin “deserved” to die. It, at most, would mean that Zimmerman’s actions were legally (although not morally) justified under Florida law.”
I have repeatedly said that based on the evidence, I personally think Zimmerman is guilty of at least negligent homicide or 2nd degree murder. There may even be more evidence that suggests 1st degree murder.
I saw Martin’s picture and I literally cried at the thought that that gentle-looking boy had been gunned down for no good reason.
My only two criticisms of the liberal reaction to this story have been (1) the refusal to acknowledge the evidence which (at least to some degree) supports Zimmerman’s claim that he was in physical danger; and (2) the haste with which everyone has jumped to the conclusion that this was cold-blooded murder.
In response, I have been told to fuck off, had my IQ questioned, been called a tool, and been encouraged to bash my head against a brick wall. That’s fine. This is the internet and I am a big boy.
What I will not stand for is being called a racist and being accused of thinking this poor beautiful child is a “n*gger” who “deserved to die”. That is an absolutely libelous and shameful lie which cannot be supported by anything I wrote. I fucking dare you to support your accusation with anything I have written.
If the commenters on this site had any ounce of integrity, they would denounce your hateful statement or at least acknowledge that your accusation is without any basis whatsoever.
burnspbesq
@dave:
How do you propose that “the facts come out,” if not at trial?
Emma
My only two criticisms of the liberal reaction to this story have been (1) the refusal to acknowledge the evidence which (at least to some degree) supports Zimmerman’s claim that he was in physical danger
dave:I’ll bite. What evidence? The fact that Zimmermann had grass stains on the back of his shirt is equally consistent with the scenario where he reaches for or pushes Trayvon and Trayvon shoves back and knocks him down. More to the point, his (and the police’s) story has been deteriorating from the beginning. It’s a factual pileup: The 911 tapes, the neighbors’ comments and complaints, the obvious malfeasance of the police department. If anything, the preponderance of the evidence seems to be on the other side.
I will agree that you did not deserve the vitriol.
burnspbesq
@dave:
Sure, it’s possible. It’s equally possible that Zimmerman committed first-degree murder, knows it, and is lying to try and escape the death penalty.
dave
@burnspbesq: Agreed.
@Emma: Thanks for the concession.
I agree that the grass stains, along with the bloody nose and the head wound do not at all rule out a scenario in which Zimmerman was the aggressor. In fact, with or without the grass stains, I think its beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated the altercation in some way.
My understanding of Florida law is that you are entitled to use deadly force if you are in reasonable fear of imminent danger and that you have no duty to retreat even if it is safe to do so. I could be wrong, but it also does not appear to matter whether you are in some sense responsible for putting yourself in the dangerous position (as Zimmerman clearly is – no matter the specific facts of the altercation).
In other words, that fact that Zimmerman “started it” does not appear to matter under Florida law. I think Florida law is fucking stupid.
The grass stains, bloody nose and head wound are clear evidence that a physical altercation occurred in which Martin (justifiably or not) caused significant bodily injury to Zimmerman. Depending on the severity of the injuries and their consistency with Zimmerman’s specific story, I think there is at least some evidence for Zimmerman’s claim that he was reasonably afraid of death or severe bodily injury.
Xantar
I’ll take you at your word that you’re just trying to stick with the evidence and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. However, I’ve worked in the court system and witnessed a lot of criminal cases. What lawyers on both sides will tell you is that the standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”. It’s not “beyond all possible doubt that you can imagine”. And right now, I think you are way past “reasonable” and getting into frankly preposterous territory.
So yeah, I guess it’s possible Martin started the fight after it is known that Zimmerman pursued him. It’s also possible that when I saw a bunch of white powdery stuff on my lawn when I woke up a few months ago that a dump truck had swung by and left a pile of shaved ice in front of my property for some reason. But I tend to believe it just snowed.
And your comparisons to people like Gary Condit just don’t hold water. We don’t have audio recordings of Gary Condit using racial slurs against Chandra Levy and making angry outbursts that would make us fear for her life.
dave
Now that I think about it, I think the issue here is that morality and law do not overlap.
Based on almost any reading of the facts, Zimmerman is a tremendous douche, probably a racist, and is certainly a crazy asshole whose conduct is morally indefensible, and at best, was extremely overly aggressive in his conduct (this is, if anything, an understatement).
Martin, on the other hand, is in now way to blame for his own death, engaged in no conduct which was morally unjustified, and at the absolute worst, was slightly overaggressive in defending himself from Zimmerman’s verbal (possibly physical) assault.
Morally, there is no contest, no matter how the facts are viewed.
However, based on the application of moronic Florida law, Zimmerman has committed no crime IF he shot Martin in a moment when he had a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury at the hands of Martin.
Since Zimmerman had a bloody nose, a wound in the back of his head, and grass stains on his back, it seems that at one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was punching him in the face. Under the circumstances, Zimmerman could reasonably fear for his life and/or severe bodily injury as defined by idiotic Florida law.
Xantar
@dave:
But now you’re moving the goal posts. You started out arguing that maybe it’s possible that Zimmerman reported one thing accurately — namely, that Martin started the fight. You’re now arguing that maybe it’s possible Zimmerman got into an altercation with Martin and ended up on the ground with Martin punching him in the face. Those are two very different circumstances.
Emma
However, based on the application of moronic Florida law, Zimmerman has committed no crime IF he shot Martin in a moment when he had a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury at the hands of Martin.
Since Zimmerman had a bloody nose, a wound in the back of his head, and grass stains on his back, it seems that at one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was punching him in the face. Under the circumstances, Zimmerman could reasonably fear for his life and/or severe bodily injury as defined by idiotic Florida law.
Actually, it’s also consistent with Zimmerman grabbing for Martin, Martin punching him once to make him let go, and Zimmerman falling back and hitting his head. So there are two readings of that incident.
However, the question will hinge on what right did Zimmerman have to start the confrontation? Even the Republican sponsor of the law has gone on record to say that the law is not meant to cover this kind of incident. MARTIN did not make the first move; Zimmerman did. Zimmerman saw a black kid in “his” neighborhood and assumed the kid was up to something for no reason anyone can figure out. Even in this benighted state, walking around while black is not yet a crime.
dave
@Xantar:
While you are right that “beyond reasonable doubt does not mean “beyond any doubt”, “beyond reasonable doubt” means different thinks to different people. In law school they suggested that 90% certainty is a good rule of thumb. I think we just will have to agree to disagree on this point, though I respect your opinion. I actually think its very likely that Martin attacked Zimmerman at one point (almost certainly in self defense)
I welcome any plausible alternative explanation for how Zimmerman came to have a bloody nose, wounds to the back of his head, and grass stains on his back.
dave
@Xantar:
I don’t think I ever argued that Martin “started” the fight in the sense that Martin took the fist action which lead to an altercation. If I did, it was unintentional.
My reading of Florida law is that it may not matter who “started it.” Once you are in reasonable of serious bodily injury you are authorized to use deadly force. Hopefully I am wrong about that.
dave
@Emma:
Actually, it’s also consistent with Zimmerman grabbing for Martin, Martin punching him once to make him let go, and Zimmerman falling back and hitting his head. So there are two readings of that incident.
Will the quesiton hing on this? I am not so sure. Its also not clear to me who “made the first move” unless you count Zimmerman following Martin to be the first move.
Paul in KY
@scav: Sanford is known as a town where if you’re blah, then it sucks to be you.
Paul in KY
@ant: I hope the poor kid wasn’t doing that. There’s few things more stupid than ‘pretending’ you have a gun.
I’m sure that wasn’t the case.
Emma
@dave: unless you count Zimmerman following Martin to be the first move. I think that’s how it is going to be looked at. Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator not to follow the kid. He’s overheard on the tape saying “they always get away with it,” and also whispering something that sounds like “f—ing coons.” At this point, he was looking for a fight. There’s also a record of people in the complex complaining about his being overly aggressive.
Emma
@ant: I don’t think Martin was trying to make believe he had a gun. Zimmerman said that “he had something at his waist,” or some such.
Darkrose
@dave:
See, and this is where you lose me. Grass stains, a bloody nose and a bump on the head != reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury. Insisting that supports Zimmerman’s claim sounds like victim-blaming.
LAC
@dave:
I come back and all I see is your endless yapping about poooor Zimmerman and how this idiot’s “bloody nose, etc” somehow makes sense of his fear. He is not police officer, he was a creepy guy with a gun. To some person minding his own business, to have that asshole following you is not right. Might it occur to you that this kid had a right to defend himself from this fuck? Some self appointed neighborhood watch bully?
You are trying to have it both ways – you can sit here on this board and tell folks not to jump to conclusions, but here you are taking whatever this lying shithole says happened and trying to make a case for what happened. Maybe you should take some of your own advice and SHUT THE FUCK UP!!
muddy
I posted this at 10am
As long as we’re speculating.
burnspbesq
I hope I’m wrong about this, but I don’t expect Zimmerman to do any time. It only takes one racist to hang a jury.
Jebediah
@Emma:
de jure, no, but de facto? maybe not so much.
Jebediah
@burnspbesq:
I’m not particularly optimistic. I think you are most likely right.
El Cid
@burnspbesq:
True, but all those knots take a while, and getting them all lined up over the branches.
Better just to shoot them.
are ear infections contagious
hey there and thanks for your information ? I have definitely picked up anything new from right here. I did however experience a few technical points the use of this site, since I skilled to reload the web site a lot of times prior to I could get it to load correctly. I had been brooding about if your web host is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading circumstances occasions will sometimes have an effect on your placement in google and could injury your high-quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am including this RSS to my e-mail and can glance out for a lot more of your respective interesting content. Ensure that you replace this once more very soon..