ORLANDO, Fla. -- A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.
Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.
Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.
White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda."
....
"White said his disclosure to the defense isn't sparked by any animosity toward his former employer.
"It has to do with the rule of law," White said. "When Mr. Kruidbos testifies next week, it will be his testimony and not my own."
O'Mara said Tuesday that he felt compelled to bring this matter to the attention of the judge after a hearing earlier this month in which De la Rionda was emphatic that he'd turned over all evidence related to Martin's cellphone.
"(Kruidbos) knew information that nobody else would know about what (the state attorney's office) didn't give us," O'Mara said. "The picture of the gun in the hand, for example, had not been turned over to us. But that had been created back in late January within the state attorney's office.
"That inquiry, if in fact it continues and it certainly should, could lead to some very dire consequences for those who made presentations to the judge that were not accurate."
O'Mara reported on the defense team's website Wednesday that Zimmerman's defense fund had less than $5,000 left. The fund had raised almost $315,000 by January.
His attorneys are calculating that Zimmerman needs another $120,000 to put on a good defense, or even another $75,000 to give him a fighting chance. "
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.
Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.
Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.
White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda."
....
"White said his disclosure to the defense isn't sparked by any animosity toward his former employer.
"It has to do with the rule of law," White said. "When Mr. Kruidbos testifies next week, it will be his testimony and not my own."
O'Mara said Tuesday that he felt compelled to bring this matter to the attention of the judge after a hearing earlier this month in which De la Rionda was emphatic that he'd turned over all evidence related to Martin's cellphone.
"(Kruidbos) knew information that nobody else would know about what (the state attorney's office) didn't give us," O'Mara said. "The picture of the gun in the hand, for example, had not been turned over to us. But that had been created back in late January within the state attorney's office.
"That inquiry, if in fact it continues and it certainly should, could lead to some very dire consequences for those who made presentations to the judge that were not accurate."
O'Mara reported on the defense team's website Wednesday that Zimmerman's defense fund had less than $5,000 left. The fund had raised almost $315,000 by January.
His attorneys are calculating that Zimmerman needs another $120,000 to put on a good defense, or even another $75,000 to give him a fighting chance. "
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.
Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.
Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.
White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda."
....
"White said his disclosure to the defense isn't sparked by any animosity toward his former employer.
"It has to do with the rule of law," White said. "When Mr. Kruidbos testifies next week, it will be his testimony and not my own."
O'Mara said Tuesday that he felt compelled to bring this matter to the attention of the judge after a hearing earlier this month in which De la Rionda was emphatic that he'd turned over all evidence related to Martin's cellphone.
"(Kruidbos) knew information that nobody else would know about what (the state attorney's office) didn't give us," O'Mara said. "The picture of the gun in the hand, for example, had not been turned over to us. But that had been created back in late January within the state attorney's office.
"That inquiry, if in fact it continues and it certainly should, could lead to some very dire consequences for those who made presentations to the judge that were not accurate."
O'Mara reported on the defense team's website Wednesday that Zimmerman's defense fund had less than $5,000 left. The fund had raised almost $315,000 by January.
His attorneys are calculating that Zimmerman needs another $120,000 to put on a good defense, or even another $75,000 to give him a fighting chance. "
This is the least surprising revelation in the case.
I am so confused now. I just can't comprehend this case anymore, there is so much lying going on, so much cheating, from both sides now. I don't even know how the judge can make a good ruling at all. I just don't understand this anymore. I though that Zimmerman was innocent, then guilty, then innocent again after the reveal of Trayvon's supposed gf's text, but now I just don't know what to think at all.
None of the unrelated shit about Martin's and Zimmerman's past behavioral histories should matter when determining exactly what happened the night Zimmerman shot Martin to death. That Martin was known to have fought someone in the past or stolen something is utterly irrelevant. That Zimmerman was known to become involved in domestic problems and lose his temper easily is irrelevant.
On May 30 2013 22:21 Lt_Stork wrote: Let's try to go through the event leading up to the gunshot. The 911 dispatcher is asking if he's following Trayvon and telling him he doesn't need to do that at 7.12 pm.
- He doesn't follow and stays on the phone until 7.13:41 pm. Call ends. - During this time Trayvon is on the phone with his girlfriend until 7.16 pm. - The first 911 call about the fight is at 7:16pm, reporting a fight and someone yelling help - The gunshot is at 7:16:55pm.
Zimmermans talks with police normally toward the end. Zimmerman ran after Trayvon, but stopped when he lost him. He wasn't threatened and Trayvon was not attacking him. - According to the girlfriend, they were still talking and Trayvon had a headset on when the final confrontation happened, between 7.15pm and 7.15:30pm
- The headset fell to the ground and call went dead at 7.16pm. Girlfriend heard Trayvon: “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
The fight lasted at the most a minute and a half before Trayvon got shot (source). In the 911 call someone is heard screaming help for over a minute, ending with the gunshot. Zimmerman claims it was him, Trayvons family claims it was Trayvon. The call is in the video bellow:
A minute and a half is what is up for debate. My personal thoughts: A person was yelling help for one minute. In that small community someone was bound to come outside and help him if it was Zimmerman. Several people called 911 minutes after the gunshot and 2 minutes later someone takes a picture of Zimmermans backhead.
The community had a history of burglaries, they knew Zimmerman, were probably friends, and appointed him neighborhood watch. Surely they would have recognized his voice screaming for help and would come out to help him.
The conclusion I draw is that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. He was in his community and if he shouted for help he could count on people to come out and help him. To shoot a 17 y/o kid after fighting for a minute?
You are drawing conclusions based on some really big assumptions: 1. That people would have been able to hear him screaming for help and they would have came to his aid 2. That he had a back up plan in case his life was in danger (people to count on to help him) 3. That it was Trayvon, not George Zimmerman, screaming for help 4. That a minute is not enough time to determine if your life is in danger
1 is wrong because a woman calls 911 for help and doesn't go outside and even says "I don't want to go out there" while on the phone. 2 is based on nothing. 3 Contradicts 1 and 2 and doesn't make any sense either because George Zimmerman was the one having his face and head smashed by Trayvons fist. The autopsy revealed that the only injuries Trayvon had were the gunshot wound in his chest, shot at intermediate range (1-18 inches), and one small abrasian on his left ring finger below the knuckle. Why would he be the one screaming if George Zimmerman was the one being punched? Why would he be screaming before he got shot when the only injury he sustained before that moment was the one on his fist? 4 is just false, especially if your head is bouncing between someones fist and the concrete, I'm sure many people would feel like their life was in danger if no one is coming to help them.
The "expert" analysis who "put his reputation" on the line said he was 95% certain that it was NOT George Zimmerman. Aside from the obvious of that not making any sense at all based on the context and the injuries both had, is one experts opinion that there is only 5% chance that it was Zimmerman screaming enough for reasonable doubt? Yes.
I don't understand what ''put reputation on the line'' can mean when you are less than 100% certain. This is a single event probability, which doesn't make any sense, If it turns out that it WAS Zimmerman, it does not mean he was wrong, how can his reputation possibly be damaged?
Suppose that Zimmerman did not pull the trigger. The 911 call from the neighbor went through and police arrive a minute later (7.18pm). Would Zimmerman be dead at this point? Was he that close to passing away or could he have run away, pushed him off or done any number of things instead of using a gun
On May 31 2013 05:24 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand what ''put reputation on the line'' can mean when you are less than 100% certain. This is a single event probability, which doesn't make any sense, If it turns out that it WAS Zimmerman, it does not mean he was wrong, how can his reputation possibly be damaged?
He is certain, and if he is proven to be incorrect he will leave his field of expertize. It's a 1/20 gamble, but given the circumstances he's putting his career on the line to show his conviction about the results in hopes that it may sway peoples opinion. This isn't something he had to do, but shows courage on his part that he is willing to take such a firm stance.
On May 31 2013 05:30 Lt_Stork wrote: Suppose that Zimmerman did not pull the trigger. The 911 call from the neighbor went through and police arrive a minute later (7.18pm). Would Zimmerman be dead at this point? Was he that close to passing away or could he have run away, pushed him off or done any number of things instead of using a gun
It is impossible to know this, and therefore not a very interesting question. If the court accepts that events went down as Zimmerman described, the court must determine whether or not Zimmerman could reasonably believe that his life was in danger, that is it.
On May 31 2013 05:30 Lt_Stork wrote: Suppose that Zimmerman did not pull the trigger. The 911 call from the neighbor went through and police arrive a minute later (7.18pm). Would Zimmerman be dead at this point? Was he that close to passing away or could he have run away, pushed him off or done any number of things instead of using a gun
On May 31 2013 05:24 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand what ''put reputation on the line'' can mean when you are less than 100% certain. This is a single event probability, which doesn't make any sense, If it turns out that it WAS Zimmerman, it does not mean he was wrong, how can his reputation possibly be damaged?
He is certain, and if he is proven to be incorrect he will leave his field of expertize. It's a 1/20 gamble, but given the circumstances he's putting his career on the line to show his conviction about the results in hopes that it may sway peoples opinion. This isn't something he had to do, but shows courage on his part that he is willing to take such a firm stance.
Doesn't matter what would have happened, what matters is what happened. He felt his life was in danger and his head was being punched into the ground repeatedly. He thought he screamed for help at least 50 times (I'm sure it can seem like alot when no one is coming and your still being attacked).
I don't recall the part of the video where he said he would leave his field of expertize if he is proven to be incorrect, but either way, he isn't gambling anything because he said 95% certainty. He literally came up with that number on the spot and used nothing scientific to come up with it. Do you not understand why the context of what happened makes absolutely ZERO sense for it to be Trayvon screaming?
On May 31 2013 05:30 Lt_Stork wrote: Suppose that Zimmerman did not pull the trigger. The 911 call from the neighbor went through and police arrive a minute later (7.18pm). Would Zimmerman be dead at this point? Was he that close to passing away or could he have run away, pushed him off or done any number of things instead of using a gun
On May 31 2013 05:24 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand what ''put reputation on the line'' can mean when you are less than 100% certain. This is a single event probability, which doesn't make any sense, If it turns out that it WAS Zimmerman, it does not mean he was wrong, how can his reputation possibly be damaged?
He is certain, and if he is proven to be incorrect he will leave his field of expertize. It's a 1/20 gamble, but given the circumstances he's putting his career on the line to show his conviction about the results in hopes that it may sway peoples opinion. This isn't something he had to do, but shows courage on his part that he is willing to take such a firm stance.
I don't understand, a 1/20 gamble is not even close to certainty, which makes your first two sentences contradictory ( you even use the word GAMBLE for fucks sake). This doesn't sound courageous, it sounds so unbelievably stupid I think this person should be barred from being expert testimony ever again.
On May 30 2013 22:21 Lt_Stork wrote: Let's try to go through the event leading up to the gunshot. The 911 dispatcher is asking if he's following Trayvon and telling him he doesn't need to do that at 7.12 pm.
- He doesn't follow and stays on the phone until 7.13:41 pm. Call ends. - During this time Trayvon is on the phone with his girlfriend until 7.16 pm. - The first 911 call about the fight is at 7:16pm, reporting a fight and someone yelling help - The gunshot is at 7:16:55pm.
Zimmermans talks with police normally toward the end. Zimmerman ran after Trayvon, but stopped when he lost him. He wasn't threatened and Trayvon was not attacking him. - According to the girlfriend, they were still talking and Trayvon had a headset on when the final confrontation happened, between 7.15pm and 7.15:30pm
- The headset fell to the ground and call went dead at 7.16pm. Girlfriend heard Trayvon: “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
The fight lasted at the most a minute and a half before Trayvon got shot (source). In the 911 call someone is heard screaming help for over a minute, ending with the gunshot. Zimmerman claims it was him, Trayvons family claims it was Trayvon. The call is in the video bellow:
A minute and a half is what is up for debate. My personal thoughts: A person was yelling help for one minute. In that small community someone was bound to come outside and help him if it was Zimmerman. Several people called 911 minutes after the gunshot and 2 minutes later someone takes a picture of Zimmermans backhead.
The community had a history of burglaries, they knew Zimmerman, were probably friends, and appointed him neighborhood watch. Surely they would have recognized his voice screaming for help and would come out to help him.
The conclusion I draw is that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. He was in his community and if he shouted for help he could count on people to come out and help him. To shoot a 17 y/o kid after fighting for a minute?
You are drawing conclusions based on some really big assumptions: 1. That people would have been able to hear him screaming for help and they would have came to his aid 2. That he had a back up plan in case his life was in danger (people to count on to help him) 3. That it was Trayvon, not George Zimmerman, screaming for help 4. That a minute is not enough time to determine if your life is in danger
1 is wrong because a woman calls 911 for help and doesn't go outside and even says "I don't want to go out there" while on the phone. 2 is based on nothing. 3 Contradicts 1 and 2 and doesn't make any sense either because George Zimmerman was the one having his face and head smashed by Trayvons fist. The autopsy revealed that the only injuries Trayvon had were the gunshot wound in his chest, shot at intermediate range (1-18 inches), and one small abrasian on his left ring finger below the knuckle. Why would he be the one screaming if George Zimmerman was the one being punched? Why would he be screaming before he got shot when the only injury he sustained before that moment was the one on his fist? 4 is just false, especially if your head is bouncing between someones fist and the concrete, I'm sure many people would feel like their life was in danger if no one is coming to help them.
The "expert" analysis who "put his reputation" on the line said he was 95% certain that it was NOT George Zimmerman. Aside from the obvious of that not making any sense at all based on the context and the injuries both had, is one experts opinion that there is only 5% chance that it was Zimmerman screaming enough for reasonable doubt? Yes.
The screaming happened away from the road in a more quiet portion of the neighborhood. People would have heard them screaming. It's why someone called 911 without "going outside" because they did hear the screaming.
What we have is an armed man who had walked closer to the victim's house than he did his car--showing that he did follow the victim. The victim ends up dead after being followed by an armed man with a history of anger issues. The victim was walking towards his home, as can be seen on the map, and the shooter was walking away from his car, as can also be seen on the map.
A struggle happened wherein one or both the people called out for help--an argument is now in session about who it was that did.
People keep bringing up injuries as if it says anything; it should make sense that Travyon has less injuries than Zman, Zman because Travyon was the one unarmed. His life being threatened by an armed man, he charges at him has to use fists to deal damage to his attacker; in the end he lost the encounter. If they did speak then Travyon would be less than 21 feet away from Zman and hence had a chance to charge him before he got shot.
It's also possible that Travyon, after being only down the street from his house, randomly decides to attack some random person on the street for no reason. I guess, if you believe black people normally do that, you can see that as plausible.
What we do know is that a fight occurred. Both sides have evidence suggesting that the other person initiated it. In the end it's about what is more believable. That a black kid randomly attacks people he sees on the streets, or that an armed vigilante got trigger happy after following a stranger despite being told by authorities not to do that.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I didn't say that there's only one story. I said it's up for contention. The only thing we know for a fact is that an armed man followed a kid and the kid got shot. Everything else is up for debate.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I didn't say that there's only one story. I said it's up for contention. The only thing we know for a fact is that an armed man followed a kid and the kid got shot. Everything else is up for debate.
Lets try not to be dishonest here though. In that post you basically said "well, if you believe black people are evil this could have happened, but if you're a rational human being then obviously this is what happened." From that post it seems that in your mind it's not actually up for contention.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I didn't say that there's only one story. I said it's up for contention. The only thing we know for a fact is that an armed man followed a kid and the kid got shot. Everything else is up for debate.
Yeah, but you did say: I guess, if you believe black people normally do that, you can see that as plausible.
My favourite part of your post was this little gem:
In the end it's about what is more believable. That a black kid randomly attacks people he sees on the streets, or that an armed vigilante got trigger happy after following a stranger despite being told by authorities not to do that.
I can play this game too...
In the end it's about what is more believable. That teen who comes from a broken home decides to pick a fight with a Hispanic guy that appears to be stalking him, or that a caring neighbour watchman just snaps and wants to kill the next kid he sees.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
On May 30 2013 22:21 Lt_Stork wrote: Let's try to go through the event leading up to the gunshot. The 911 dispatcher is asking if he's following Trayvon and telling him he doesn't need to do that at 7.12 pm.
- He doesn't follow and stays on the phone until 7.13:41 pm. Call ends. - During this time Trayvon is on the phone with his girlfriend until 7.16 pm. - The first 911 call about the fight is at 7:16pm, reporting a fight and someone yelling help - The gunshot is at 7:16:55pm.
Zimmermans talks with police normally toward the end. Zimmerman ran after Trayvon, but stopped when he lost him. He wasn't threatened and Trayvon was not attacking him. - According to the girlfriend, they were still talking and Trayvon had a headset on when the final confrontation happened, between 7.15pm and 7.15:30pm
- The headset fell to the ground and call went dead at 7.16pm. Girlfriend heard Trayvon: “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
The fight lasted at the most a minute and a half before Trayvon got shot (source). In the 911 call someone is heard screaming help for over a minute, ending with the gunshot. Zimmerman claims it was him, Trayvons family claims it was Trayvon. The call is in the video bellow:
A minute and a half is what is up for debate. My personal thoughts: A person was yelling help for one minute. In that small community someone was bound to come outside and help him if it was Zimmerman. Several people called 911 minutes after the gunshot and 2 minutes later someone takes a picture of Zimmermans backhead.
The community had a history of burglaries, they knew Zimmerman, were probably friends, and appointed him neighborhood watch. Surely they would have recognized his voice screaming for help and would come out to help him.
The conclusion I draw is that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. He was in his community and if he shouted for help he could count on people to come out and help him. To shoot a 17 y/o kid after fighting for a minute?
You are drawing conclusions based on some really big assumptions: 1. That people would have been able to hear him screaming for help and they would have came to his aid 2. That he had a back up plan in case his life was in danger (people to count on to help him) 3. That it was Trayvon, not George Zimmerman, screaming for help 4. That a minute is not enough time to determine if your life is in danger
1 is wrong because a woman calls 911 for help and doesn't go outside and even says "I don't want to go out there" while on the phone. 2 is based on nothing. 3 Contradicts 1 and 2 and doesn't make any sense either because George Zimmerman was the one having his face and head smashed by Trayvons fist. The autopsy revealed that the only injuries Trayvon had were the gunshot wound in his chest, shot at intermediate range (1-18 inches), and one small abrasian on his left ring finger below the knuckle. Why would he be the one screaming if George Zimmerman was the one being punched? Why would he be screaming before he got shot when the only injury he sustained before that moment was the one on his fist? 4 is just false, especially if your head is bouncing between someones fist and the concrete, I'm sure many people would feel like their life was in danger if no one is coming to help them.
The "expert" analysis who "put his reputation" on the line said he was 95% certain that it was NOT George Zimmerman. Aside from the obvious of that not making any sense at all based on the context and the injuries both had, is one experts opinion that there is only 5% chance that it was Zimmerman screaming enough for reasonable doubt? Yes.
The screaming happened away from the road in a more quiet portion of the neighborhood. People would have heard them screaming. It's why someone called 911 without "going outside" because they did hear the screaming.
What we have is an armed man who had walked closer to the victim's house than he did his car--showing that he did follow the victim. The victim ends up dead after being followed by an armed man with a history of anger issues. The victim was walking towards his home, as can be seen on the map, and the shooter was walking away from his car, as can also be seen on the map.
A struggle happened wherein one or both the people called out for help--an argument is now in session about who it was that did.
People keep bringing up injuries as if it says anything; it should make sense that Travyon has less injuries than Zman, Zman because Travyon was the one unarmed. His life being threatened by an armed man, he charges at him has to use fists to deal damage to his attacker; in the end he lost the encounter. If they did speak then Travyon would be less than 21 feet away from Zman and hence had a chance to charge him before he got shot.
It's also possible that Travyon, after being only down the street from his house, randomly decides to attack some random person on the street for no reason. I guess, if you believe black people normally do that, you can see that as plausible.
What we do know is that a fight occurred. Both sides have evidence suggesting that the other person initiated it. In the end it's about what is more believable. That a black kid randomly attacks people he sees on the streets, or that an armed vigilante got trigger happy after following a stranger despite being told by authorities not to do that.
So you are making even more assumptions without proof and dismissing the injuries as irrelevant in determining who was screaming during the phone call.
A few assumptions 1. That he was told not to follow Trayvon. False. He said he was following him and the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that. That's not an order, and even if it was, he isn't obligated to "obey orders". 2. That Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with a gun before they started fighting. Plausible, but still just an assumption.
Aside from that your post is just race-baiting nonsense. You're more concerned about what sounds more believable to you than the facts.
Interestingly enough you think it's more believable for someone to charge a stranger who's pointing a gun at them than for someone to attack somebody who's questioning their suspicious activity.
On May 31 2013 05:55 GwSC wrote: Oh look, it's someone presenting the "This is what happened, if you think otherwise you're a racist" argument, yet again.
I am kind of interested in your viewpoint. Why do you think Martin would attack Zimmerman?
I have no idea. I do not follow all this as closely as some people do. I just would prefer that if people want to make the argument "This is what happened and you're a racist if you think otherwise", they would not try to beat around the bush and instead just say it outright.
Some people think that when a person with a gun follows you for more than a block and ends up shooting you that he is more likely to have instigated a fight.
Others think a kid walking home would instigate a fight.
Of course that doesn't make sense since why would a kid that is walking home randomly start a fight? Oh right, there is one reason why you would think it would make sense why a black kid would randomly start a fight.
If you have other reasons why a kid would randomly start fights on his way home--please enlighten us.
That is all a perfectly reasonable point to raise, and it can be presented without falling into calling anyone who disagrees a racist, which to me cheapens it significantly. There is a big difference between "Clearly A is more likely than B, how could a sensible person think otherwise" and "Clearly A is more likely than B, if you don't think so you must be racist". It is just not necessary.
EPT![[image loading]](http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg?w=510&h=342)
