Dr. Fate, excellent post. Thanks.

The video is worth watching. I would be interested in a rebuttal by anyone who is in the pro Martin camp.

Freeman, re your jury trial, very interesting. Thanks. Could it be that in both cases the jury came up with the right answer?

Ray Jay wrote:Dr. Fate, excellent post. Thanks.

The video is worth watching. I would be interested in a rebuttal by anyone who is in the pro Martin camp.

There is a little bit of supposition there, and some of the evidence is not actually relevant to the case that was at hand.

The jury had enough reasonable doubt with what they saw, so not sure that it helps to keep rehashing the case and finding dirt on Martin. And Whittle seems to be picking up a little of the ol' ODS.

I did have a response but deleted it. Dan's response is sufficient without my getting into the details of the video.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Dr. Fate, excellent post. Thanks.

The video is worth watching. I would be interested in a rebuttal by anyone who is in the pro Martin camp.

There is a little bit of supposition there, and some of the evidence is not actually relevant to the case that was at hand.

The jury had enough reasonable doubt with what they saw, so not sure that it helps to keep rehashing the case and finding dirt on Martin. And Whittle seems to be picking up a little of the ol' ODS.

Not surprisingly, I have a different view. Listening to the media both during and after the trial, we were supposed to believe:

1. Trayvon was a helpless, innocent tiny child.

2. Zimmerman was a racist behemoth with his own gravitational pull that permitted him to reel in the hapless young Trayvon.

3. Zimmerman wanted to kill and Trayvon is an indirect decendent of Gandhi and MLK.

And, I know, I know . . . that is hyperbole. Yet, if you actually read what was said during and after the trial, I'm not exaggerating by much.

The facts are:

1. Trayvon was not a 100 lb. waif.
2. Trayvon was not blameless.
3. Trayvon very likely could have run away. Actually, I don't think there's reasonable doubt about that.
4. Zimmerman could have avoided the whole scenario by remaining in his vehicle. There is no reasonable doubt about that.
5. Zimmerman did not suffer life-threatening injuries.
6. Zimmerman could have reasonably thought that he was going to.
7. This was a tragedy caused by a unique confluence of factors. Race does not appear to be the most significant factor.
8. The prosecution had a weak 2nd degree murder case. If not for politics, it would not have been brought to trial. If not for the President, the Attorney General, those who make a living stirring up racial division (Sharpton, Jackson, et al), and the media, this case would either not have been brought at all or would have been a much lesser charge.
9. What is happening now is a posthumous attempt to make Trayvon a civil rights icon. His life ended too soon, but he is no martyr in the cause of justice.

ok, go ahead and discount the video and how it would not be allowed in court (but is yet another reason I was so very skeptical when asked to serve on a murder trial).f course these things are hidden from the jury. But does it change YOUR view of Zimmerman? For so many who want him found guilty, doesn't this change your view about him? When this came out we had a LOT of people continuing with the whole innocent kid angle ...he looks less and less innocent as each day goes by doesn't he?

After spending hours and hours on this, reviewing testimony, 9-11 calls, etc. I think this boils down to the bluetooth. Treyvon was milling around as he went from store to home blabbering away to his female friend. Zimmerman mistook that behavior in the dark to be crazy or drugged out. He jumped to a very unfortunate conclusion. I highly suspect that if Treyvon had a phone pressed up to his head it would have looked a lot different.

A Caucasian man killed a blackie with an AK-47. The blackie was charging him, and he held his ground. Unfortunately, the wounds were fatal. I hope this does not restart the entire debate all over again.
[url]
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/30/al ... =obnetwork[/url]

(tongue planted FIRMLY, btw)

I look forward to the President discussing the Australian gunned down in Oklahoma and the octogenarian beaten to death

In Spokane, Washington, on Wednesday night, according to local reports, World War II veteran and Battle of Okinawa survivor Delbert Belton was beaten by two African American teenagers described as between the ages of 16 and 19. Belton passed away Thursday morning of head injuries.

Belton, 89, was shot in the leg at Okinawa. He was confronted in the parking lot of the Eagles Lodge, adjacent to the Eagles Ice-A-Rena, when the two suspects jumped him, beat him, and left him to die. One is described as heavy and wearing black clothing, and the other is described as six feet tall and 150 lbs., wearing a silk do-rag.

Because the President would not race-bait or anything of that sort . . .

Doctor Fate wrote:I look forward to the President discussing the Australian gunned down in Oklahoma and the octogenarian beaten to death

In Spokane, Washington, on Wednesday night, according to local reports, World War II veteran and Battle of Okinawa survivor Delbert Belton was beaten by two African American teenagers described as between the ages of 16 and 19. Belton passed away Thursday morning of head injuries.

Belton, 89, was shot in the leg at Okinawa. He was confronted in the parking lot of the Eagles Lodge, adjacent to the Eagles Ice-A-Rena, when the two suspects jumped him, beat him, and left him to die. One is described as heavy and wearing black clothing, and the other is described as six feet tall and 150 lbs., wearing a silk do-rag.

Because the President would not race-bait or anything of that sort . . .

Exactly. I was going to post on this, as well! I wonder if President Obama would identify with that unfortunate white Aussie?

Have the police dropped the investigation on the basis it was self defence?

Because until then, it's not the same, and it's you guys who are race baiting.

danivon wrote:Have the police dropped the investigation on the basis it was self defence?

Because until then, it's not the same, and it's you guys who are race baiting.

Neal and I were talking this issue yesterday. It is not the police that are the question in my opinion. It is the people who verbally jump immediately on Zimmerman (who should have stayed in the car), and are silent when it comes to the Aussie B-ball player of the 88 year old vet from Spokane.

In my view it diminishes a person's credibility when they only castigate one side or the other for similar instances.

I can't speak for the 'people' you are bringing into this. I won't defend them, or tolerate being set up as a proxy for them.

My concern was that an investigation into a homicide was dropped with what at the time appeared to be haste. The main thing I thought had to be the outcome was a re-opened investigation, and - if a case existed - a prosecution.

That led to a proper evaluation of the case, which is more appropriate than the situation before. To my mind, the attitude of and trust in police and prosecutors (and the uncertainty over the law on self-defence and 'Stand Your Ground') was the problem.

Whatever people said afterwards when joining the bandwagon is not really the issue, unless you want to make that (and the 'credibility' of people) more important than the question of someone being killed.

Frankly, I think trying to make a comparison just to score political points demeans the value of the life of Delbert Belton.

This article responds to the above posts very effectively. http://www.salon.com/2013/08/23/the_rig ... ack_crime/

freeman3 wrote:This article responds to the above posts very effectively. http://www.salon.com/2013/08/23/the_rig ... ack_crime/

Dude, it's unintentionally funny, if a screed about race and murder can be funny:

Word of the shooting spread quickly. And that’s when the right clumsily revealed that its obsession with gun violence reflects an obsession with racial score settling rather than with averting further tragedies. The conservative media, including Fox News, repeated the claim that the Oklahoma suspects were all black. But this turned out to be a toxic mix of racial bias and wishful thinking. You almost wonder whether the people whose ulterior motives led them into error like this actually lamented the fact that one of the suspects happened to be white.

Let's see . . . who classified Zimmerman as "white Hispanic?" Was that the "conservative media?"

He classified himself, long before the incident, as "Hispanic." He voted for Obama twice. Yet, he was turned into a racist thug by the liberal media and many liberal politicians, including a member of Congress who said Trayvon was "hunted down like a dog."

I think Salon, and you, would do well to hold your "fire" until all the facts are in. It certainly appears there was some racial (via the suspects' social media posts) and gang aspect to this murder. And, it's not unknown for whites to be in racial gangs that are traditionally composed of other races. It's more about where they grew up.

danivon wrote:Have the police dropped the investigation on the basis it was self defence?

Because until then, it's not the same, and it's you guys who are race baiting.

Nonsense.

The President took the position that Trayvon was an innocent before knowing all the facts. His Attorney General announced they would re-examine the case at a Federal level after the verdict, even though the FBI found no evidence of racial animus before the verdict--and the prosecution provided precious little during the trial.

Why did the President leap to promote Trayvon's victimhood?