Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by nadsat

I don't see how it's exaggerated. He's just repeating what GZ claimed. He also said medical records at the scene will substantiate the injuries claim.

link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...-interview.cnn

You don't think "beaten almost into unconsciousness" is a bit of an exaggeration?

Then there is this claim" "This mythology, this fantasy that he chased anyone, He didn't chase anyone... he did not follow nor did he ever catch up to ..." Zimmerman is chasing TM on the 911 tape where he's breathing hard.

I can't listen to the rest of it again. It's just one lie after another and if this is GZ's actual story, the lies make it very incriminating.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest

"Physician heal thyself."

Sgtbaker said as much: She was only referring to Lefty's post.

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I am talking specifically about Lefty's claim. Not the actual case.

I know it's hard to keep up in this tediously long thread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Thought this might need to be posted.

FLORIDA
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS
IN CRIMINAL CASES

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/j...structions.pdf

3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE page 62.

From the link these sentences appear to apply. I don't claim they are the only ones that apply.

Quote:

However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: ....

2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force....

...No duty to retreat. ...

... There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

...Exceptions to Presumption of Fear.
The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if:
a. the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [the vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

...Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

Both defendant and victim in this case had a right to be where they were.

So the case depends on two things, 1) where one determines the altercation began, either when GZ approached TM (GZ would be the aggressor), or when one of them caused the other to feel threatened (anyone in TMs position would logically feel threatened), or, when one of them made the first physical contact (we may never know).

And 2) if it was possible for GZ to get away rather than shoot.

Despite all the "stand your ground" references, this seems to be saying in a run of the mill fight you should first try to get away. If GZ was in his home, his vehicle, or if TM had committed some felony then other jury instructions would be applicable about no duty to flee. I don't see how 'no duty to flee' applies here. But if someone feels differently I'd like to hear their reasoning.

And given GZ outweighed TM, it's going to be hard to argue how TM was going to kill GZ or how GZ couldn't have gotten away. And this is where I think all the GZ family lies are coming from. They appear to know GZ's belief he was going to be killed is GZ's only defense. And given the circumstances it's my opinion all these exaggerations of GZ's injuries only serve to discredit his claims, not support them.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl

I just found it odd considering the description of the events - Zimmerman's bloody nose and Martin's proximity when shot - that there are no obvious stains of any kind at all on the front of Zimmerman's shirt. The focus got shifted to a lack of grass stains on his back in the surveillance video but that could be hard to see on a red jacket. However, dark blood stains on the grey shirt should be pretty easy to spot and we get a couple different relatively long looks at the shirt. Perhaps Zimmerman's jacket had been zipped up at the time of the incident. I just found it perplexing that there's nothing there.

If Zimmerman's jacket was zipped at the time of the shooting, the police would have opened it when they searched him. Someone who has just shot an unarmed person would be given a thorough pat-down.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I think that's the point. You can't both claim Zimmerman had a reasonable enough suspicion to do what he did based solely on Martin's appearance and behavior, and insist that it would not have been reasonable for Martin to feel threatened based on Zimmerman's appearance and behavior.

Yes but that only works if anyone here said anything close Zimmerman having a reasonable suspicioun of Trayvon, simply because he was black and wearing a hoodie. I don't think anyone made that claim.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Yes but that only works if anyone here said anything close Zimmerman having a reasonable suspicioun of Trayvon, simply because he was black and wearing a hoodie. I don't think anyone made that claim.

I think Zimmerman made that claim. That and 'he looks like he's on drugs', which was baseless.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I think Zimmerman made that claim. That and 'he looks like he's on drugs', which was baseless.

I don't think the profiling issue is even questioned, here, though.

[a_unique_person]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Sustained calls for help from someone that his mother thinks is Martin.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Yes but that only works if anyone here said anything close Zimmerman having a reasonable suspicioun of Trayvon, simply because he was black and wearing a hoodie. I don't think anyone made that claim.

But it is the underlying claim being made by Zimmerman (that of Martin being suspicious, not necessarily the specifics) that seems to get conveniently ignored by the "We can't know for sure what happened" camp.

This case is being treated as if Zimmerman and Martin were both walking down the street minding their own business, when point of fact, only Martin was doing that. Zimmerman was recklessly and irresponsibly following this kid around with a gun - for no good reason.

With the information we have at this point, Zimmerman is clearly the aggressor. Which, to me, seriously undercuts his claim to self-defense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

It appears to say that starting the fight doesn't necessarily cancel your self-defense claim.

But there are exceptions to that:

Quote:

...Exceptions to Presumption of Fear.
The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if:
a. the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [the vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

TM had as much right to be there as GZ. But those instructions define residence and dwelling as something with a roof over it or an attached porch. I can't find a reference to being in one's own yard. All the community property in that community is technically everyone's yard.

OTOH, whether GZ did have a duty to retreat or not, the jury can consider that just because someone is hitting you is not automatically assumed to be life threatening:

Quote:

Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

It could come back to whether or not the jury believes GZ believed. Proving what someone believed or did not believe is a heavy burden for a prosecutor.


I'm still not convinced GZ's provoking TM does not apply. It's unclear how the court distinguishes between a crime committed "under duress or necessity" as opposed to "self defense". The former takes notice of provoking the attack:

Quote:

1. The defendant reasonably believed [a danger] [an emergency] existed which was not intentionally caused by [himself] [herself].

It would seem to me without going through all those instructions that there is a difference between getting in a fight and shooting the guy and chasing him down and TM defends himself which is a reasonable scenario.

[Xulld]

I just want to say one thing really. This thing has not played out in such a way I feel I need to put my .02 in on the actual case.

Many things a person can do may make me feel threatened. However unless they have done something which is an actual threat of force, then force is not a reasonable reaction.

Person stares at me for a long duration with a scowl -------- > I feel threatened, however no threat of force has been issued.

Person says I look funny, with no amount of humor involved ------ > I feel threatened, but no threat of force has been issued.

Person says I am going to grab you by the neck and choke you like a chicken, but does so with a silly tone, and the person is known to me to be a kidder . . . I do not feel threatened, but someone who does not know this person may believe a threat of force has been issued.

A Person advances on me quickly, then reaches into their pocket while threatening my life ------ > a verbal threat followed by a physical act to carry out that threat has been issued. The right thing to do is vocalize that the person should stop, and if he does not then I have justification for a defensive attack if the person enters an area where that threat of force is viable. Given the potential for a weapon it becomes immediately clear my life is in danger.

I am sure I have left out something, but this is the general concept behind threat of force and the force continuum.

Please any feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but this is why following in and of itself is not justification for an attack. It may be threatening, but no threat of force has been issued by action or word.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Sustained calls for help from someone that his mother thinks is Martin.

Uh, you do know we are on page 97 of this thread, right?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Xulld

I just want to say one thing really. This thing has not played out in such a way I feel I need to put my .02 in on the actual case.

Many things a person can do may make me feel threatened. However unless they have done something which is an actual threat of force, then force is not a reasonable reaction.

Person stares at me for a long duration with a scowl -------- > I feel threatened, however no threat of force has been issued.

Person says I look funny, with no amount of humor involved ------ > I feel threatened, but no threat of force has been issued.

Person says I am going to grab you by the neck and choke you like a chicken, but does so with a silly tone, and the person is known to me to be a kidder . . . I do not feel threatened, but someone who does not know this person may believe a threat of force has been issued.

A Person advances on me quickly, then reaches into their pocket while threatening my life ------ > a verbal threat followed by a physical act to carry out that threat has been issued. The right thing to do is vocalize that the person should stop, and if he does not then I have justification for a defensive attack if the person enters an area where that threat of force is viable. Given the potential for a weapon it becomes immediately clear my life is in danger.

I am sure I have left out something, but this is the general concept behind threat of force and the force continuum.

Please any feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but this is why following in and of itself is not justification for an attack. It may be threatening, but no threat of force has been issued by action or word.

Thank you for an excellent thumbnail of what the legal system refers to as the 'totality of the circumstances'.

That ties into the often discussed 'elements' of the crime, which include not only the act, but the thoughts.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by bookitty

If Zimmerman's jacket was zipped at the time of the shooting, the police would have opened it when they searched him. Someone who has just shot an unarmed person would be given a thorough pat-down.

I keep hearing about the red jacket masking blood. Dried blood is rust to dark brown, not red. You could see blood on a red jacket or shirt if there was enough of it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Uh, you do know we are on page 97 of this thread, right?

It's impossible to keep up.

It's not impossible to know what was going through Martin's mind. He was terrified and calling for help.

[boyntonstu]

A few questions:

1> Why was TM in a gated community?
2> Is there a guarded entrance?
3> If he drove a car there, where was it parked?
4> Did Zimmerman say that he saw TM going between houses?
5> What was the time of day?
6> Did TM have any business, friends, or purpose for being in the gated community?

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Thank you for an excellent thumbnail of what the legal system refers to as the 'totality of the circumstances'.

That ties into the often discussed 'elements' of the crime, which include not only the act, but the thoughts.

Thank you, I am a novice in regards to the law, the more I learn the more I realize how little I knew and how judgmental my previous opinions of the law where.

I appreciate the links, and the factual relevance that is presented in these kinds of threads. I hope anyone will correct anything I say which misrepresents the law so that I can correct my understanding.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

But it is the underlying claim being made by Zimmerman (that of Martin being suspicious, not necessarily the specifics) that seems to get conveniently ignored by the "We can't know for sure what happened" camp.

This case is being treated as if Zimmerman and Martin were both walking down the street minding their own business, when point of fact, only Martin was doing that. Zimmerman was recklessly and irresponsibly following this kid around with a gun - for no good reason.

With the information we have at this point, Zimmerman is clearly the aggressor. Which, to me, seriously undercuts his claim to self-defense.

That's not illegal. Profiling/flat out racism and following someone isn't a crime, under any law. It doesn't matter what inspired him to follow Trayvon. If (notice the if) Zimmerman's story is true, Zimmerman stopped following him and was heading back to his car, when Trayvon approached him, asked him if he had a problem, then attacked him. Again, if that story is true, then Trayvon was in the wrong, not for being black and wearing a hoodie, for confronting his follower with violence. The problem, that has been so since the beginning, is there is nothing to counter the aspects of Zimmerman's story that matter the most.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

But it is the underlying claim being made by Zimmerman (that of Martin being suspicious, not necessarily the specifics) that seems to get conveniently ignored by the "We can't know for sure what happened" camp.

This case is being treated as if Zimmerman and Martin were both walking down the street minding their own business, when point of fact, only Martin was doing that. Zimmerman was recklessly and irresponsibly following this kid around with a gun - for no good reason.

With the information we have at this point, Zimmerman is clearly the aggressor. Which, to me, seriously undercuts his claim to self-defense.

Pretzel logic.

'We can't know' means just that. We can't know what constituted 'suspicious' in the minds of either person. Saying that is ignoring something that *you* can't possibly know either, and trying to assign those who point out the obvious to the 'pro-Zimmerman camp' is specious.
That doesn't just exclude the middle, it makes lace out of it.

We *can* point out that what Martin was doing would have been perfectly normal in our own minds (as a lot of people here keep saying, and you keep ignoring), but we have no mind reading machines or abilities that let us 'know' what another person was thinking.

The job of the prosecution will be to create a negative impression of what Zimmerman was thinking, the job of the defense will be to create a plausible alternative...

And the job of the jury will be to decide what *they* do or don't think was in the shooter's mind.

But saying 'We don't know' here and now is simply a rational assessment of reality, not some sort of 'camp'.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

A few questions:

1> Why was TM in a gated community?
2> Is there a guarded entrance?
3> If he drove a car there, where was it parked?
4> Did Zimmerman say that he saw TM going between houses?
5> What was the time of day?
6> Did TM have any business, friends, or purpose for being in the gated community?

Martin was visiting his father who lived in the gated community. Martin left the house to walk to a local store for snacks. He was carrying a bag of skittles and an ice tea when he was shot.

Your leading questions have been noted.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

That's not illegal. Profiling/flat out racism and following someone isn't a crime, under any law. It doesn't matter what inspired him to follow Trayvon. If (notice the if) Zimmerman's story is true, Zimmerman stopped following him and was heading back to his car, when Trayvon approached him, asked him if he had a problem, then attacked him. Again, if that story is true, then Trayvon was in the wrong, not for being black and wearing a hoodie, for confronting his follower with violence. The problem, that has been so since the beginning, is there is nothing to counter the aspects of Zimmerman's story that matter the most.

Sort of. There's still the complicated mess of hate crimes.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It's impossible to keep up.

It's not impossible to know what was going through Martin's mind. He was terrified and calling for help.

A witness says it was Zimmerman calling for help. Zimmerman also says he was calling for help.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It's impossible to keep up.

It's not impossible to know what was going through Martin's mind. He was terrified and calling for help.

It is certainly possible to assume.
But it is impossible to know what was going through a dead person's mind.
It is also impossible for us to know whose voice that was, between 2 people we've never met in your life.

If you can prove otherwise, I'd say 'Don't spend the million all in one place'.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

A witness says it was Zimmerman calling for help. Zimmerman also says he was calling for help.

Well, witnesses don't agree on who was crying for help, and Zimmerman's story, or rather the stories that his defenders have been pushing, is just idiotic.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

A few questions:

1> Why was TM in a gated community?
2> Is there a guarded entrance?
3> If he drove a car there, where was it parked?
4> Did Zimmerman say that he saw TM going between houses?
5> What was the time of day?
6> Did TM have any business, friends, or purpose for being in the gated community?

You can't question the story of Martin at all. It's not allowed.

It's set in stone. He was just walking along with skittles and iced tea.

Or skillets according to Al Sharpton.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I keep hearing about the red jacket masking blood. Dried blood is rust to dark brown, not red. You could see blood on a red jacket or shirt if there was enough of it.

I'm just not sure what could be seen on any color jacket under florescent lights on a grainy video.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Well, witnesses don't agree on who was crying for help, and Zimmerman's story, or rather the stories that his defenders have been pushing, is just idiotic.

The witnesses do agree, I believe. The eye witnesses.

You can't just throw out Zimmerman's story. It's part of the case. It's one of the first things he said to the police. No one would help him.

Besides, there may well be another race narrative there that no one wants to talk about.

Did bystanders refuse to help Zimmerman because he was white?

If they had come to help, maybe Martin doesn't get shot?

Did they not help because a black man was beating a white man?

Speculation of course, but I am actually surprised not to hear it mentioned.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Sort of. There's still the complicated mess of hate crimes.

Has anyone provided a good reference to the fact that actual hate crimes are being pursued (other than the media throwing around hot button words)?

Nothing in the narrative so far comes anywhere close. James Byrd was a hate crime.

*These* are hate crimes: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investig...ts/hate_crimes

The OCR may be investigating on the basis of allegation that the local PD is allowing the civil rights of black people to be trampled, but that would be a different set of statutes.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

That's not illegal. Profiling/flat out racism and following someone isn't a crime, under any law. It doesn't matter what inspired him to follow Trayvon.

I never claimed it was illegal, and it certainly matters when determining who was the aggressor.

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

If (notice the if) Zimmerman's story is true, Zimmerman stopped following him and was heading back to his car, when Trayvon approached him, asked him if he had a problem, then attacked him. Again, if that story is true, then Trayvon was in the wrong, not for being black and wearing a hoodie, for confronting his follower with violence. The problem, that has been so since the beginning, is there is nothing to counter the aspects of Zimmerman's story that matter the most.

I did notice the "if", and it's a big one. Everything that follows can be filed under the heading "Facts not in evidence".

What we do know, what fact is in evidence, is that it was Zimmerman's actions that initiated the encounter. It was Zimmerman's reckless and irresponsibly behavior that led to a shooting death. That seems to get overlooked.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The witnesses do agree, I believe. The eye witnesses.

You can't just throw out Zimmerman's story. It's part of the case. It's one of the first things he said to the police. No one would help him.

Besides, there may well be another race narrative there that no one wants to talk about.

Did bystanders refuse to help Zimmerman because he was white?

If they had come to help, maybe Martin doesn't get shot?

Did they not help because a black man was beating a white man?

Speculation of course, but I am actually surprised not to hear it mentioned.

Considering that 'white' came from the media and others ignorant of Hispanic culture assuming wrongly that the name Zimmerman couldn't be anything but white...

... and the fact that he was in fact, quite brown, I'd say that speculation should go back home.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Considering that 'white' came from the media and others ignorant of Hispanic culture assuming wrongly that the name Zimmerman couldn't be anything but white...

... and the fact that he was in fact, quite brown, I'd say that speculation should go back home.

The photos I've seen of him don't look very brown at all. And the idea that "white" and "Hispanic" are mutually exclusive is false. As is the idea that "black" and "Hispanic" are mutually exclusive. "Hispanic" is not a racial group.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Pretzel logic.

'We can't know' means just that. We can't know what constituted 'suspicious' in the minds of either person. Saying that is ignoring something that *you* can't possibly know either, and trying to assign those who point out the obvious to the 'pro-Zimmerman camp' is specious.
That doesn't just exclude the middle, it makes lace out of it.

We *can* point out that what Martin was doing would have been perfectly normal in our own minds (as a lot of people here keep saying, and you keep ignoring), but we have no midn eading skills or abilities that let us 'know' what another person was thinking.

The job of the prosecution will be to create a negative impression of what Zimmerman was thinking, the job of the defense will be to create a plasuible alternative...

And the job of the jury will be to decide what *they* do or don't think was in the shooter's mind.

But saying 'We don't know' here and now is simply a rational assessment of reality, not some sort of 'camp'.

We do know there is zero evidence Martin was doing anything wrong.

We do know that Zimmerman acted recklessly and irresponsibly.

We do know that Martin ended up dead as a result of Zimmerman's actions.

To pretend otherwise - that Zimmerman and Martin were somehow of equal standing before their encounter, and the Zimmerman wasn't the aggressor - is disingenuous.

I'm not sure what part of that logic you consider pretzel-like.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

You can't question the story of Martin at all. It's not allowed.

It's set in stone. He was just walking along with skittles and iced tea.

Do you have any evidence that any of this is not true? Or are the calls for wild speculation to end only reserved for that which impugns Zimmerman?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The witnesses do agree, I believe. The eye witnesses.

You can't just throw out Zimmerman's story. It's part of the case. It's one of the first things he said to the police. No one would help him.

Besides, there may well be another race narrative there that no one wants to talk about.

Did bystanders refuse to help Zimmerman because he was white?

If they had come to help, maybe Martin doesn't get shot?

Did they not help because a black man was beating a white man?

Speculation of course, but I am actually surprised not to hear it mentioned.

There are only two eye witnesses that saw the actual fight, and they don't agree on much of anything. And while we can't discount Zimmerman's story, the fact that it places him far from the crime scene where he was found, and that it's directly contradicted by his own 911 call, means that it's false. Sorry, people don't get punched in the face from behind, while checking street names in a backyard.

And your alternate race narrative is a joke. If you believe it...well, study history for a bit.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Considering that 'white' came from the media and others ignorant of Hispanic culture assuming wrongly that the name Zimmerman couldn't be anything but white...

... and the fact that he was in fact, quite brown, I'd say that speculation should go back home.

White came from the Martin family lawyer, iirc. They have been orchestrating the media circus all along.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/2...strangers.html

Besides, Zimmerman is apparently not wanted in the Hispanic community.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/la...his-ethnicity/

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

A few questions:

1> Why was TM in a gated community?
2> Is there a guarded entrance?
3> If he drove a car there, where was it parked?
4> Did Zimmerman say that he saw TM going between houses?
5> What was the time of day?
6> Did TM have any business, friends, or purpose for being in the gated community?

7. Was he carrying his birth certificate?

(amirite?)

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

There are only two eye witnesses that saw the actual fight, and they don't agree on much of anything. And while we can't discount Zimmerman's story, the fact that it places him far from the crime scene where he was found, and that it's directly contradicted by his own 911 call, means that it's false. Sorry, people don't get punched in the face from behind, while checking street names in a backyard.

And your alternate race narrative is a joke. If you believe it...well, study history for a bit.

Narrative? If I believe it?

It's speculation and I labeled it as such.

Stop with the "punched from behind" garbage already. It's made up. No one who has followed the case would write that junk.

You are complaining about my speculation while blatantly making up a story.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

A few questions:

1> Why was TM in a gated community?
2> Is there a guarded entrance?
3> If he drove a car there, where was it parked?
4> Did Zimmerman say that he saw TM going between houses?
5> What was the time of day?
6> Did TM have any business, friends, or purpose for being in the gated community?

1. He was visiting his father.
2. No.
3. Don't know if he drove there initially, but if he did it would likely be at his father's house.
4. Depends on what you mean by between houses.
5. About 7pm.
6. See 1.

Anything else?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

White came from the Martin family lawyer, iirc. They have been orchestrating the media circus all along.

Yeah, Zimmerman shooting their son played right into their hands.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Sort of. There's still the complicated mess of hate crimes.

Hate crimes also involve something more than profiling and following; whether it be intimidation, crime against a person (physical), or crime against property.