On March 30 2012 04:55 Defacer wrote: Zimmerman saw a strange man he thought could be Black on the street. In Zimmerman's mind, a black man's wearing a hood in his neighborhood is enough reason to be suspicious of them.
Upon closer inspection, he confirmed he was Black. He saw the man was talking to himself, and instead of thinking maybe he's wearing headphones and singing to himself, or maybe he's on the phone, he thought hey -- he must be on drugs.
Zimmerman's paranoia and desire to catch someone suspicious in the act is what created this mess. It's called confirmation bias, folks. He saw what he wanted to see.
Honestly, given the almost complete lack of details about the situation you have, you're the one with a bias. You're claiming confirmation bias from him when you have absolutely no way to know that. None at all. He didn't say "He's talking to himself, he must be on drugs." He just said "He looks like he's on drugs" The talking is a detail YOU added. Because YOU want to find the answer YOU want.
There is a difference in profiling and seeing someone doing something that doesnt look right. If a cop pulled a black male over without a reason that would be profiling. But if that same cop pulled over a black male with a taillight out he has a reason to and it is not profiling.
In the case where the cop pulled over the black man with a broken tail light, the cop had a concrete reason to do so. Race in that situation is 100% irrelevant. He had a broken tail light, simply put. Zimmerman had zero concrete facts/details. He was suspicious of a black man. Trayvon didn't do anything other than walk down the sidewalk.
If a white male was sitting at a playground watching children would you think child molester? Now if that same white male was at a playground watching children while his kid was playing would you think the same thing? You fail to see the difference between profiling and seeing the reasons why a conclusion is made based on the area and the statistics of that area of crimes committed.
I would absolutely never think a white male who was alone in a park watching kids was a child molester. You are imposing your own bias on me. Depending on his mannerisms, I might think he was creepy or something. Now, if he was touching himself, then I might come to the conclusion that he was a child molester.
You fail to see the difference between bias and objective fact. Statistics are your means of rationalizing profiling, period.
So tell me if your neighborhood was exactly like this where break-ins by black males you would not find a black male with one hand in his pants and one hand in his hoodie looking at houses at night suspicious to you? I would call the cops for the same thing that Zimmerman saw. Although i would not follow the kid because that is something the cops can take care of.
I live in East Cleveland, and if you don't know anything about it, it's kind of a shit hole. I live in/near many bad neighborhoods. Places are abandoned, crime is pretty common, and it's kind of all around not the greatest place. Most crimes / descriptions of criminals in the area are that of a black man. I previously stated that if I see a black man walking towards me at night when I am alone I sometimes get nervous. I also said that this is my problem, and I recognize that it isn't the proper response. Nevertheless, I have not, nor will I ever call the cops just because I walked by a black man that made me nervous or even if he looked 'suspicious' (however one may determine that). I won't call the cops if I see a black man walking down my street idly looking at houses. Whether or not he's wearing a hoodie or has his hands in his pockets. I would call the cops if I saw someone, regardless of race, peering through someone's windows or jiggling the handle/lock on someone's door. I would do this because I feel that I had some sort of proof. I do not share your biases, and you really, really need to recognize your own.
As someone stated he was a neighborhood watchmen and knew the faces of his community and did not recognize Trayvon while he had his hand in his waistband walking in the rain at night. To him that is suspicious because he doesnt know whole the person is. Now if Zimmerman was just a person who lived in the neighborhood and didnt know what a tenth of the community this would be different. I am not being biased, i am being practical. I know my neighbors and their faces and someone was walking around at night while it was raining in my neighborhood after some burglaries i would find it suspicious too whether or not the person is black or not.
If you do not understand the comparison i was making of the amount of force Zimmerman used to the amount of force the law enforcement use then you should re-read what i wrote. I do not see why you would think to put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes literally. Put yourself in his shoes in your head! (DUH!) I do not see it as racially profiling when the facts show one race is the cause for most of the crimes in an area, and you see a person of that race doing something you find suspicious how is that racially profiling?! Now If Trayvon was just walking looking down and it was not raining and still had his hands in his pockets and it wasnt night i would have not found it suspicious at all. The reasons i would as Zimmerman most likely did are the facts about that night. One it was night time and he was walking alone in a neighborhood known for alot of criminal activity at night. Would you be walking around at night just to get skittles and a drink in that neighborhood? Second it was raining! I know if it was night time and it was raining i would go walking to the store unless i had no other choice in that neighborhood, even then i wouldnt do it for a drink and skittles! All of these are reasons why a black male in a neighborhood like that would look suspicious to me.
When most people think of a terrorist, they think of a person of middle-eastern descent, right? At least that is the impression that I get here in the states. I mean, we all think of Bin Laden when we think terrorist, no? So, based on your argument, it would then be appropriate to target them specifically at airports for security reasons, right? I mean, most terrorist are from the middle-east, so any person from the middle-east is suspicious to me? Turns out, you can't do that kind of stuff, at all. One race may be associated with the majority of the crime in that area, but you are using that as a justification of profiling them. You are judging them based solely on their race, and using very, very minor details (hands in pockets, raining, etc.) to justify the bias you have. Do black men need to stop walking around at night to avoid suspicion?
There is a difference in profiling and seeing someone doing something that doesnt look right. If a cop pulled a black male over without a reason that would be profiling. But if that same cop pulled over a black male with a taillight out he has a reason to and it is not profiling. Zimmerman had his reasons to think Trayvon was suspicious in a neighborhood known for black male crimes. If a white male was sitting at a playground watching children would you think child molester? Now if that same white male was at a playground watching children while his kid was playing would you think the same thing? You fail to see the difference between profiling and seeing the reasons why a conclusion is made based on the area and the statistics of that area of crimes committed.
You don´t seem to understand the definition of racial profiling. You cite cases where you think racial profiling is ´bad´, and cases where you evidently think its ´good´. But they are all cases of racial profiling. You should probably look it up.
Edit: In response to your other reply, I actually used the word 'likely'.
I could see it being racial profiling if all Zimmerman stated is he saw a black male walking and to him that was suspicious. BUT Zimmerman stated he was walking alone in the rain with his a hand in his pants and a hand in his hoodie while looking at houses. Now once again by the FACTS from the neighborhood's crime, they show most of them have been committed by black males. Zimmerman saw a black male looking at houses with his hands in different places hidden looking at houses. He did not call the cops just because he was black.
It becomes racial profiling when the fact that the kid was black is a consideration (AND he wasn't looking for a specidic black offender for a specific crime). Nobody is claiming that he was trying to warn the police about a black man being black. I believe you have already said quite clearly that it would be a consideration for you, and that you suspect it was for Zimmerman. I wish you wouldn't make things so difficult, you are quite clearly in favor of racial profiling in some instances but dont seem to like that the word has negative connotations.
Felnarion and dAPhREAk just pointed out what im trying to say. and said it better than i could. Those are the reasons why he was not profiling but calling the cops on a suspicious black male.
No, they have stated the beliefs Zimmerman had when he came to the conclusion that Martin was suspicious, they have not at all established that he definitely was not profiling. It is perfectly possible for a person to have all those beliefs and still be engaging in racial profiling.
Ok yes they have not stated that he was/was not profiling, but Felnarion and your statements as to why he called the cops.
My statement about him calling the cops was to disprove your denial that Zimmerman had a suspicion that Martin was likely about to commit a crime. Nothing else. Are you intentionally trying to confuse this discussion or something? You seem to be going to great lenghts.
I never said Zimmerman never had suspicion about what Trayvon was doing. Now im confused because ive been saying that Zimmerman Had many reasons as to why Trayvon was suspicious.
On March 30 2012 04:55 Defacer wrote: Zimmerman saw a strange man he thought could be Black on the street. In Zimmerman's mind, a black man's wearing a hood in his neighborhood is enough reason to be suspicious of them.
Upon closer inspection, he confirmed he was Black. He saw the man was talking to himself, and instead of thinking maybe he's wearing headphones and singing to himself, or maybe he's on the phone, he thought hey -- he must be on drugs.
Zimmerman's paranoia and desire to catch someone suspicious in the act is what created this mess. It's called confirmation bias, folks. He saw what he wanted to see.
Who are you, Zimmerman's psychiatrist? You have no way to know what was going on inside the man's head, what you've said is nothing but baseless conjecture. Stick to the facts, please.
I'm curious - Trayvon Martin was at his father's fiance's home within the community. How long was he there, and why is he an "unknown face" in that community?
Mr. Zimmerman was known to go "door to door" to ask people to look out for suspicious characters. The OP's quote uses the wording: "young black men who appear to be outsiders". Did he ever ask Mr. Martin's fiance, Miss Brandi Green?
Was this the first visit of the young man in that neighborhood?
On March 30 2012 05:11 JinDesu wrote: I'm curious - Trayvon Martin was at his father's fiance's home within the community. How long was he there, and why is he an "unknown face" in that community?
Mr. Zimmerman was known to go "door to door" to ask people to look out for suspicious characters. The OP's quote uses the wording: "young black men who appear to be outsiders". Did he ever ask Mr. Martin's fiance, Miss Brandi Green?
Was this the first visit of the young man in that neighborhood?
I don't know if we have extremely concrete details on that, but it appears he did not live there regularly, and he may have been there before, but not for any extended period of time. Someone can correct me on that if I'm mistaken.
There is a difference in profiling and seeing someone doing something that doesnt look right. If a cop pulled a black male over without a reason that would be profiling. But if that same cop pulled over a black male with a taillight out he has a reason to and it is not profiling.
In the case where the cop pulled over the black man with a broken tail light, the cop had a concrete reason to do so. Race in that situation is 100% irrelevant. He had a broken tail light, simply put. Zimmerman had zero concrete facts/details. He was suspicious of a black man. Trayvon didn't do anything other than walk down the sidewalk.
If a white male was sitting at a playground watching children would you think child molester? Now if that same white male was at a playground watching children while his kid was playing would you think the same thing? You fail to see the difference between profiling and seeing the reasons why a conclusion is made based on the area and the statistics of that area of crimes committed.
I would absolutely never think a white male who was alone in a park watching kids was a child molester. You are imposing your own bias on me. Depending on his mannerisms, I might think he was creepy or something. Now, if he was touching himself, then I might come to the conclusion that he was a child molester.
You fail to see the difference between bias and objective fact. Statistics are your means of rationalizing profiling, period.
You're arguing against nothing. Zimmerman didn't state that it was a black male and that made him suspicious.
He stated:
1. He thought he was a black male at first, which he later confirmed. 2. He's looking around a lot 3. He looks like he's on drugs 4. The kid is walking around at night, in the rain, in a neighborhood that's been hit with burglaries frequently. 5. He's got his hand in his waistband 6. He ran.
Stop trying to paint him with your view based on a single detail that really is irrelevant to the case. He thought he was suspicious based on a number of other observations independent of race, all of which would make me equally suspicious.
i would like to add that this is a gated community, zimmerman is a frequent neighborhood watcher (watchman?), he likely knows most of the residents due to his neighborhood watching and he didnt recognize the kid. this is more than just a "i saw a black guy and called the cops."
Very well put by Felnarion I think this should be added to the original post
and also 7. He was never instructed by an authority to not follow martin 8. He has had neighborhood watch training (I read that he had to do some classes for this)
really getting tired of people coming in here and making comments when their facts are false
He was instructed by the dispatcher to not follow Martin. I would definitely consider the dispatcher an authority, no matter if he was legally obligated to follow his directions. Neighbourhood watch training quite obviously does not train people to intervene, as evidenced by the Neighbourhood Watch tweets about this. It is indeed annpying when people spread false or incomplete information.
On March 30 2012 04:55 Defacer wrote: Zimmerman saw a strange man he thought could be Black on the street. In Zimmerman's mind, a black man's wearing a hood in his neighborhood is enough reason to be suspicious of them.
Upon closer inspection, he confirmed he was Black. He saw the man was talking to himself, and instead of thinking maybe he's wearing headphones and singing to himself, or maybe he's on the phone, he thought hey -- he must be on drugs.
Zimmerman's paranoia and desire to catch someone suspicious in the act is what created this mess. It's called confirmation bias, folks. He saw what he wanted to see.
Honestly, given the almost complete lack of details about the situation you have, you're the one with a bias. You're claiming confirmation bias from him when you have absolutely no way to know that. None at all. He didn't say "He's talking to himself, he must be on drugs." He just said "He looks like he's on drugs" The talking is a detail YOU added. Because YOU want to find the answer YOU want.
Hey, I'm not going to deny that I'm speculating. I'm skeptical because of the lack of facts.
All these people that are taking what little facts we have at face value to defend their position just amuse me.
There a camp of people that are outraged *cough Spike Lee * because they are misinformed.
There is a camp of people that outraged because other people are outraged, trying to diffuse the gravity of the case by treating incomplete information as gospel.
Then there's people like me, that realize that it's pointless to try and 'solve the case' at this point, and realize the more compelling discussion lies in questioning what the circumstances of the case say about society and perception.
But hey, I forgot TL is a Sacred Court of Law that is going to save the planet from awful things like 'empathy' and 'subjectivity' or 'opinions'. LOL.
*sigh*, sensationalist and hypocritical.How can you lambast media for their "spin" when you are telling me I should be mad at other black people for making my skin color the basis of suspicion?
no wonder black on black crime is so rampant. /sarcasm
This guy speaks so much truth! This video should be edited into the original post mainly because of the amount of evidence he speaks of that has not been mentioned yet.
Hinojosa: We have an ongoing investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin and it is a parallel investigation. We are providing resources to the state while we do a thorough investigation.
What is the FBI investigating?
Couvertier: The parallel investigation we’re running is specifically focused on the death of Trayvon Martin and more specifically, were there any violations of his civil rights? We are not investigating the Sanford Police Department, which has been a little confusing for folks.
So there's no federal investigation into the local police?
Hinojosa: When the Justice Department investigates a whole police department, like we did in New Orleans or in L.A., that is a pattern of practice investigation — that’s something different. We are not doing that here.
So the FBI is not providing oversight of the state investigation?
Couvertier: Exactly. We’re not monitoring their investigation or dictating anything. That’s an investigation by a state attorney brought in from a different jurisdiction to create that independent review.
What happens if, in the course of your investigation, you uncover improprieties by local police or prosecutors?
Couvertier: If something like that did come up, that would be addressed accordingly, either by state [investigators], federal, or both. But right now we are focused on the circumstances surrounding Trayvon’s death and his civil rights. The state attorney's office is looking at the death and how everything was handled so they would be aware of any issues and address those accordingly.
A: Martin, 17, was shot and killed by a single gunshot wound to the chest Feb. 26 during a confrontation with Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer in a gated community of townhomes in Sanford, Fla.
Zimmerman was patrolling the neighborhood when he spotted Martin, who was unarmed and walking to the home of his father's fiancee. She lived nearby, though it wasn't clear if her home was in the gated community.
Martin was returning from a trip to the convenience store with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles. It was raining, and Martin was walking with the hood of his sweatshirt pulled over his head. He talked to his girlfriend on a cellphone moments before the shooting, according to Martin's family's attorney.
Q: What is George Zimmerman's side of the story?
A: George Zimmerman has not spoken publicly. He told police that he spotted Martin as he was patrolling his neighborhood and called 911 to report a suspicious person.
"This guy looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something," Zimmerman told the dispatcher from his sport utility vehicle. He added that the teen had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.
"These a-------. They always get away," Zimmerman said on a 911 call.
A neighbor said there had been several break-ins in the community in the past year, including one in which burglars took a TV and laptops.
A dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle and that an officer would be there momentarily. Zimmerman, for unknown reasons, got out.
Zimmerman told police he lost sight of the teenager and was walking back to his vehicle when he was attacked. He and Martin fought, according to witnesses. Zimmerman said Martin punched him in the nose and slammed his head against the ground.
At some point, Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot Martin. Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense.
Police said Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head. He told police he had yelled out for help before he shot Martin.
He has not been arrested or charged.
Q: What is Martin's family's side of the story?
A: Much of Martin's side of the story comes from a cellphone conversation he had with his girlfriend moments before the shooting. She was interviewed by the family's attorney, Benjamin Crump, and he released much of what she said to the news media. She has not been identified.
In the interview, she said Trayvon Martin told her that he was being followed.
"She says: 'Run.' He says, 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast,'" Crump said, quoting the girl.
The girl later heard Martin say, "Why are you following me?" Another man asked, "What are you doing around here?" Crump said.
After Martin encountered Zimmerman, the girl thinks she heard a scuffle "because his voice changes like something interrupted his speech," Crump said. The phone call ended before the girl heard any gunshots.
Martin's parents said their son made the pleas for help that witnesses heard.
Q: What did Zimmerman say on the 911 call?
A: On one of Zimmerman's calls to police that night, he muttered something under his breath that some listeners say sounds like a racial slur. Others, however, say the recording is not clear enough to determine what Zimmerman actually said.
Q: Who is investigating?
A: Sanford Police have turned over their evidence to local prosecutors for them to decide whether Zimmerman should be charged. The Justice Department and FBI have opened a civil rights investigation. Several members of Congress have called for the case to be investigated as a hate crime.
Q: Why didn't police arrest Zimmerman?
A: Zimmerman claims self-defense, and Florida is among 21 states with a "stand your ground law," which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight. The Florida law lets police on the scene decide whether they believe the self-defense claim. In many cases, the officers make an arrest and leave it to the courts to work out whether the deadly force is justified. In this case, however, police have said they are confident they did the right thing by not charging Zimmerman.
Q: What does the police video of Zimmerman show?
A: The video shows a handcuffed Zimmerman being led into the police station. It may be important for what it doesn't show: No obvious cuts, scrapes, blood or bandages. No clearly broken nose. No plainly visible evidence of a life-and-death struggle.
Martin's family and supporters seized on the footage to dispute Zimmerman's claim that he shot and killed the unarmed black teenager after the young man attacked him.
Zimmerman attorney Craig Sonner said on NBC's "Today" show the footage appears to support his client's story in some respects.
"It's a very grainy video. ... However, if you watch, you'll see one of the officers, as he's walking in, looking at something on the back of his head," Sonner said. He also noted that the police report said Zimmerman was treated before he was taken to the police station for questioning.
Q: What could the charges be?
A: If Zimmerman is charged, he could most likely face second-degree murder or manslaughter charges at the state level. If convicted of the second-degree murder charge, he could potentially face up to life in prison because a gun was used.
Federal prosecutors could charge Zimmerman with a hate crime if they think there is evidence he was motivated by racial bias. That charge can carry the death penalty in the most severe instances, or up to life in prison.
Federal prosecutors could also accuse Zimmerman of using his official authority to violate Martin's rights — known as a "color of law" case — but they would have to prove that Zimmerman was acting in some official capacity, similar to a police officer or government official. Zimmerman was a volunteer neighborhood watchman.
Q: When will prosecutors decide whether Zimmerman is charged?
A: It's unclear. A spokeswoman for the special prosecutor who has taken over the local investigation said it could be weeks before they decide. Special prosecutor Angela Corey has three options: She could present the case to a grand jury, which would decide whether Zimmerman should face charges; she could charge him without the grand jury's review; or she could decide not to bring the case before the panel and not charge him.
Norm Wolfinger, the prosecutor who recused himself from the case, had planned to convene a grand jury to review the case April 10.
It is also unclear when the Justice Department will make its decision.
Q: What is George Zimmerman's racial and ethnic background?
A: Zimmerman's father is white, and his mother is Hispanic.
I'm confused by one other thing, and I wholly apologize if I missed this in the thread.
I remember in the original thread that a short time-line based on the call times and lengths was created. The time in between Trayvon Martin's last call and the time before the police arrived to find Trayvon Martin shot was very short, if I remember correctly. I am trying to track down that information, but if someone has that information on hand I would appreciate if you can post it.
The current OP states that the phone records has Trayvon Martin on the phone when the incident/attack occurs.
Disregarding the girlfriend's hearsay, who on earth remains on the phonecall with the girlfriend when he is planning to attack someone right at that moment?
From the Police Arrival portion of the OP:
Zimmerman claimed self-defense, telling police he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on, when Martin attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck. He said he fired the semiautomatic handgun because he feared for his life.
I do not understand how Trayvon Martin was on the phone, and proceeds to attack Mr. Zimmerman from behind (as though unawares)?
I really do have to contest your update of the OP with the pictures from the video. I saw the same video from a different source.
The young turks are clearly on the side of the Martin family that being said;
if you watch their version of the video you do not see anything that resembles a gash in Zimmerman's head. I even took two screenshot of their version
The Images in the OP to which I referring to are spoilered + Show Spoiler +
Clearly one of our sources has manipulated the footage. Seeing as TYT has a reputation for being honest and they have provided a whole video not merely still images which are much easier to doctor I am going to have to take their side. The source in the OP also states that they "enhanced" the second image to make what they say "May be a gash" more visible.
At this point the we can be sure that someone is distorting the facts.
The young turks are clearly on the side of the Martin family that being said;
if you watch their version of the video you do not see anything that resembles a gash in Zimmerman's head. I even took two screenshot of their version
The Images in the OP to which I referring to are spoilered + Show Spoiler +
Clearly one of our sources has manipulated the footage. Seeing as TYT has a reputation for being honest and they have provided a whole video not merely still images which are much easier to doctor I am going to have to take their side. The source in the OP also states that they "enhanced" the second image to make what they say "May be a gash" more visible.
At this point the we can be sure that someone is distorting the facts.
Take a screenshot of his head when he is behind the squad car looking at the ground, i could clearly see a thick line going from the top down at an angle that seemed to be a gash to me.
Edit: At exactly 1:56 you can clearly see the gash on his head.
The video is pretty fuzzy, and it's really hard to tell either way.
What I wanna know is: What was the cop looking at when he clearly inspected the back of his head/neck.
Also, all their talk about his nose is nonsense. Blood would have been wiped away, nosebleeds stop pretty quickly, and your nose doesn't have to look fucked up to be broken. But, the fact that there was no blood on any of his clothing is dubious.
The young turks are clearly on the side of the Martin family that being said;
if you watch their version of the video you do not see anything that resembles a gash in Zimmerman's head. I even took two screenshot of their version
Clearly one of our sources has manipulated the footage. Seeing as TYT has a reputation for being honest and they have provided a whole video not merely still images which are much easier to doctor I am going to have to take their side. The source in the OP also states that they "enhanced" the second image to make what they say "May be a gash" more visible.
Another thing I noticed in that video was they said there wasn't any blood around his nose from a broken nose. It made me realise there wasn't actually any blood on him as far as I could see. He has a light t-shirt on which blood stains would be fairly obvious. I would have thought if Trayvon was on top of him when he was shot there would be at least some blood on his clothes I imagine gun shot wounds are reasonably messy but I could be wrong.
The young turks are clearly on the side of the Martin family that being said;
if you watch their version of the video you do not see anything that resembles a gash in Zimmerman's head. I even took two screenshot of their version
The Images in the OP to which I referring to are spoilered + Show Spoiler +
Clearly one of our sources has manipulated the footage. Seeing as TYT has a reputation for being honest and they have provided a whole video not merely still images which are much easier to doctor I am going to have to take their side. The source in the OP also states that they "enhanced" the second image to make what they say "May be a gash" more visible.
At this point the we can be sure that someone is distorting the facts.
i updated with the ABC article that says there are clearly no injuries, and also with the Daily Caller article that says there may be injuries. what exactly do you want from me? people claim ABC doctored the video, and now you are claiming that Daily Caller doctored the still images.... jesus...
EPT![[image loading]](http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww125/AROTIMI/BackZimmermanhead2.png)
![[image loading]](http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww125/AROTIMI/BackZimmermanhead1.png)
![[image loading]](http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Zimmerman-ABC-video-enhanced-caption.jpg)
