You just won’t read. The family and their attorney said Trayvon “stood his ground” and ‘punched Zimmerman in the nose.” NOT the police. And let me tell you something, we STILL don’t have all the facts. Guaranteed. So learn to chill.

You are a liar. I rewatched Al Sharptons show where he interviewed the parents and where you claim that they said that Trayvon “punched Zimmerman in the nose”… That is a flat out lie, they say no such thing, infact what they say is that Trayvon was non confrontational and just wanted to get home… he walked faster to get away, but stood his ground when confronted by Zimmerman. You convienently decided not to post the video or transcript of the interview, so you could easily lie about it. I’ll post it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755884/#46814638

clearly also the facts are not as luridly one-sided as many here have incorrectly assumed

Maybe next time when you say that new “facts” have been brought out, it could maybe ACTUAL FACTS instead of just your speculation, conjuecture, and what the police say. That might be nice.

What I “want” has absolutely nothing to do with it. What I want is to personally execute every fucking villain on the planet. I looked at your profile. You called me a “hypocrite” repeatedly and insistently yesterday for dealing with the concept of stereotyping in two very different contexts. I want you to think about that. I think you are predictably, justifiably emotional about this issue, but I will not be indulging you any further. I’ve given you a lot of good info, the same as others here, like Box Turtle and Sinestar are offering. You are the one who is being blind.

I called you a hypocrite because you were being a hypocrite. you’ve given no good info really. When confronted with the witnessess differing about the police on who was doing the screaming you suddenly bring skepticsim to the equation… yet you totally apply NO SKEPTCISIM when it was the police making exact opposite claims of the witnesses with no more evidence. You’ve done this several times over and over again. its quite pathetic really.

You are trying very hard to paint me as something I’m not. I believe the justice system is and has been completely broken from top to bottom for decades. That is why I quit practicing law. But this is about a case that has to be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Just take a few moments to think about that, will you?

I think I’m doing a pretty good job of pointing out what you actually are.

yes, reasonable doubt… leave it up to a jury to decide if there was reasonable doubt. Have a real investigation instead of just taking Zimmermans word for it, how bout that?

If he is incicted by a Grand Jury on April 10 will you stand by this logic?

everybody has heard the screams over the phone. 3 witnessess heard it LIVE IN REAL TIME. if you want to discount that you can.

of course cops run the investigation, thats the whole point… showing no skepticism when the cops make a decree on something (something they didn’t hear in real time) yet showing absolute skepticism on the word of 3 witnesses who actually did hear the screams in real time is kinda strange to me. There is no level of certainty to even discuss. The cops said one thing, the witnesses say another. The cops try to “correct” what one witness says she heard… somehow the cops are more certain than the witnesses, without any kind of vocal analysis.

How can the prosecutor believe it’s a murder if the police are telling him that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help? Dumb as a fucking rock.

According to you we don’t know who did the screaming, can’t be sure… even though 3 witnesses say it was Trayvon not Zimmerman. And one cop even “corrected” a witness who said it was Trayvon screaming telling her that it was Zimmerman.

So if we don’t know who did the screaming (cant take the word of 3 people who heard the screams in real time apparently) why should the prosecutor take the word of the police? And even more curiously, why would the police form a conclusion without doing a thorough voice analysis?

but then again, I’m just “Dumb as a fucking rock”

HOW CAN ANYONE be sure who that cry came from, without electronic audio analysis? They heard a yell, they have no idea whose mouth it came out of. Anybody who’s ever had to actually present evidence to a court would know this. I heard it. It could definitely be the sound of a fat, out-of-breath guy screaming in fear. Zimmerman has a soft voice to begin with. I really hate when people pretend to know what they cannot know for sure. What is wrong with saying, “I don’t know the truth yet, I have to wait and hope I get more information that allows me to be sure”?

You showed no such skepticism when it was reported that the cops believed that Zimmerman was doing the screaming. No longwinded post on “HOW COULD THE COPS KNOW FOR SURE!” But all of a sudden when its reported that 3 witnesses heard the screams of the 17 year old… now conviently comes the skepticism…. when it comes out that the cops “corrected” a witness as to what she heard THEN comes the “lets wait for more information”.

I’m sure the witnesses that actually heard the screams live are pretending to know what they heard (as you suggest)… unlike the cops, who I’m sure are being 100% truthful.

Everything Zimmerman did until the moment of first physical contact between him and Trayvon was 100% legal, very stupid but completely legal. All that matters in determining the self-defense claim under that stupid law is what happened after the physical confrontation began, and whether Zimmer man could have actually felt fear of serious injury while in that altercation. Even the girlfriend’s phone call testimony sheds ZERO light on that question. Frankly, if a fat fuck had cornered and attempted to intimidate me in a dark yard as a 17 year old, and was not showing his gun, I would have quickly put him in fear of taking a major beating, a serious injury, and that would trigger the self-defense claim under that stupid and sloppy Florida law. Many have confused their disdain for that stupid law, with the way the law enforcement machinery has to act under authority of that stupid law. The salient point is that nobody can competently dispute Zimmerman’s version of that altercation, he being the only live witness to it.

Usually when someone is shot to death we let a jury decide all that tricky legal stuff right? Seems in this case the police decided not to pursue that option and just take Zimmermans version at face value. Law enforcement is under no obligation to not arrest Zimmerman based on his word alone… its also not their job to pronounce him guilty, its the job of a jury. If after April 10 the Grand jury decides that there is enough evidence to charge Zimmerman then your so called point would be rendered irrelevant.

The fact that nobody has yet to challenge Zimmermans version of events does not mean that his version of events should be taken as true or should not be challenged… IMO he should face a jury of his peers.

And your pathetic conjecture as to what you would do if confronted by Zimmerman is in no way evidence of what actually occured…. but your pathetic obfuscation is noted.

Just get a reading comprehension coach, OK? I can’t be responsible for correcting every wrong assumption or interpretation you are capable of making. Life is too short. Seriously.

gI let your words do the talkin…. I just present what you say. Its not my fault that the only conclusion one could draw is that your are a hypocrite. Don’t get angry at me… or do…. whatever, I don’t really care.

Now you’ve chosen to cross the line into moronhood. Anybody who can read the English language can immediately look and see the kind of linguistic game you were trying to play. God save us all if the new standard for writing comments is that we must never leave any room at all for those who want to misunderstand to say they have found a basis for misunderstanding. I guess you are denying that progressives care about the issues I mentioned? Talking Stick was just lecturing me for not letting my emotion rule. So, who’s right?

1.The only “linguistic game” I’m playin is the one that involves quoting your own words back to you to reveal your hypocrisy…(its a pretty easy game by the way)

2.I’m not denying the fact that progressives care about issues, what I was doing, clearly, was pointing out how you believe that a rational conversation about these issues cannot be had with progressives.

This case represents the intersection of three major emotional issues for progressives. Race, gun-control, and self-defense law. Each one alone is difficult to discuss rationally, but all three together, no chance.

so don’t point out when you’re being a hypocrite…. got it.

hope that wasn’t too cute.

Now you are touching on something illuminating. This case represents the intersection of three major emotional issues for progressives. Race, gun-control, and self-defense law. Each one alone is difficult to discuss rationally, but all three together, no chance.

That sounds like stereotyping to me…. we wouldn’t wanna do that now would we.

Certainly Zimmerman did some stereotyping. And so is every single person deciding this case on the basis of history. Think about it.

yeah, but only Zimmerman followed, confronted, and killed someone… I’m assuming of course.

the only person who did any stereotyping that we know of for sure is the killer.

What we do know is that Zimmerman followed and unarmed teenager while carrying a gun, we know Zimmerman though he looked suspicious and drugged out. We know that Trayvon knew he was being followed. We know that Trayvon was unarmed

The undisputed facts are that one person was walking along minding his own business, while the person who would end up killing him was stalking him because he looked suspicious.

All that matters is what happened when they were face to face? Really? How bout the fact that Zimmerman was armed, Trayvon was unarmed, Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon and Trayvon knew it. I think those think those details matter and provide context. I think any honest person that knows the facts that arent in dispute up to this point would probably conclude that a 28 year old man carrying a gun and stalking a 17 year old kid who was carrying ice tea and skittles would probably be at fault here… but I could be wrong…. Zimmerman could have been deathly alergic to skittles and affraid for his life…. WE NEED MORE FACTS!

Why is it ok to attack Perry for his insane, nonsensical, and “weird” religious beliefs but not Romney again? Why is Fundie clap-trap ok for ridicule and scorn but not Mormon clap-trap?