The Symbol of Innocence?

"If you do a Google Search for 'Purple Lean' or 'lean drink' or 'lean drank' it is sort of an urban kind of drug. It's known in some circles as poor man's ecstasy or something like that," George Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax.

"The main ingredients are watermelon, Arizona watermelon juice, a hard candy . for sweetness, and then some type of either codeine tablets if you can get them or Coricidin D, Robitussin DM," he explained.

"It's an intoxicant and it's a fairly significant one," O'Mara said.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/23/zimmerman_lawyer_trayvon_had_recipe_for_poor_mans_ecstasy.html

It's the final punch line in this tragedy - he wasn't out after a sweet drink and a bag of candy, he was looking to get high. Why does that matter? Only because the skittles bag was used by the confused to symbolize an innocent victim, shot down for no reason except presumably the malevolent racism of GZ. That he was shot instead while looking to get a non-criminal high pokes just one more ironic hole in that tall tale told to manipulate.

Worse Than He Said She Said?

Some have asked - was the murdered 17 year on trial, too?  Yes.  Your actions shape the perception folks have. TM as a thief, bully, doper and rule breaker/multiple-arrestee drives a different perception than "the good child who's only crime was walking to the store for skittles." That's why we tell our children to follow the rules!

Short of trying to kill someone, though, no 17 year's old's irresponsibility justifies them being killed. But, that's just the rub, isn't it?

GZ's testimony was that TM said he would kill GZ, and attempted to cover GZ's nose/mouth as part of the assault. GZ's nose may well have been impossible to breathe through at that point anyway.

In short - even if TM was 17, if he wanted to kill GZ, said he was going to do so, and had the means, he's an attempted murderer IN ADDITION to being a doper, rule breaker, bully/fighter, and multiple arrestee.

Some will say, "TM did not threaten to kill GZ, GZ just made that story up to cover his murder of a 17 year old."

This is the reality of this kind of situation, and much like a he said/she said we'll never know the truth of who said what or didn't say anything at all.

I wonder - is it really such a stretch to believe that TM, an abandoned and out of control 17 year old, would act as GZ described?

I think the answer is yes or no depending upon the emotional investment in the issue one has.

I am struck by how unwilling people are to point a finger at TM's parents. It appears TM was not living with either parent very much, and it's pretty clear neither parent could or did make taking care of TM a priority. I can't tell from the readings for sure, but it appears his parents were virtually absent from the last 60 days of TM's life. I understand being sensitive to their loss, but it is clear that a 17 year old abandoned to his own devices is the significant portion of this tragedy. It appears unlikely that the story would have been the same had TM been living with his father or mother.  That makes it not a whit less tragic.

The Divide

Why is the GZ and TM situation causing conflict instead of grief and reflection?  Because we are all beyond being naive enough to believe it has anything to do with TM.  Of course there are some folks who are genuinely upset with this young man's murder - but the froth?  We know, don't we, that it's about maneuvering for political advantage.

I could almost never take all the hoo haa about racism and "shot because he was black" because that sort of choice is inconceivable to me.  I have met one person at least who would do such a thing, and thought he was a monster.  Those people define the rule by their glaring exception.

I don't see this as an incident of race, per se. I don't think GZ killed TM because TM was black, nor did TM get GZ's attention because he was black.  Having been in fights, in training, and knowing how it feels - GZ's last consideration was the race of his attacker.  Under that much duress, no one cares who is causing it.  They just want it to stop.

However, behaviors that are normal for TM and his peers, are not normal for GZ and his peers. TM thought punching GZ and sitting on him to beat him was a good idea (apparently). Who was in his life that would have told him or taught him otherwise? Seemingly, his parents were not playing that role.

Do we hold parents accountable these days for the conduct of their kids? If not, why not?

Common Sense?

This is a very thoughtful, enjoyable article - until the conclusion, after which Kathleen's judgment was apparently impaired.

She asks why GZ was armed, and it is a good question. But she ignores that being armed prevents many crimes annually, more often than not, with no shots being fired. The equally relevant question is - why did TM think he could jump a guy in a public place, an adult, and threaten to kill him, and suffer no consequence. It's not just that TM thought he was in the right to do that, but that the risk of doing so was low. The reason he thought that was that he'd been in so many school fights he began to think of assaulting people as a sport, not a matter of life and death.


The point is that this is one of those rare instances in which everyone is right within his or her own experience. African Americans are right to perceive that Martin was followed because he was black, but it is wrong to presume that recognizing a racial characteristic is necessarily racist. It has been established that several burglaries in Zimmerman's neighborhood primarily involved young black males.

Picture Zimmerman's neighbor Olivia Bertalan, a defense witness, hiding in her locked bedroom with her infant and a pair of rusty scissors while two young males, later identified as African American, burglarized her home. They ran when police arrived.

This is not to justify what subsequently transpired between Zimmerman and Martin but to cast a dispassionate eye on reality. And no, just because a few black youths caused trouble doesn't mean all black youths should be viewed suspiciously. This is so obvious a truth that it shouldn't need saying and yet, if we are honest, we know that human nature includes the accumulation of evolved biases based on experience and survival. In the courtroom, it's called profiling. In the real world, it's called common sense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-unanswered-questions-in-trayvon-martin-case/2013/07/16/b154e1b0-ee44-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

Darned Interesting

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-in-2010-race-related-beating-for-officers-who-investigated-martin-shooting/

I wonder how far the civil rights witch hunt will go with items like this in GZ's past.

"Supposed Thought Crimes"

Apparently, racist, sexist, or homophobic words themselves do not necessarily earn any rebuke. Nor is the race or gender of the speaker always a clue to the degree of outrage that follows.

Instead, the perceived ideology of the perpetrator is what matters most. Maher and Letterman, being good liberals, could hardly be crude sexists. But when the conservative Limbaugh uses similar terms, it must be a window into his dark heart.

It's apparently OK for whites or blacks to slur the conservative Clarence Thomas in racist terms. Saying anything similar of the late liberal justice Thurgood Marshall would have been blasphemous.

In short, we are dealing not with actual word crimes, but with supposed thought crimes.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/12/supposed_crimes_of_the_mind__119189.html#ixzz2Z7LzuaOg

This follows the pattern, quoting from a speech by Steven Covey, "We judge ourselves by our intentions, we judge others by their actions." In other words, if someone we identify with says something we assume good intentions. If someone we fear or loath says the same thing, we assume bad intentions.

There is also a power dynamic - the powerless can say offensive things and not seem repugnant to others. The powerful, or those perceived as having power (IOW Rush L), appears to many as a bully.

Thoughts from the "Other Side" - Are You Afraid?

"Other side" meaning from someone with a very different perspective than my own - but one I hope to learn from.

But there's a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There's no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime-86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you'll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it's driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it's because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other.

Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.

[Statistics].. show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it's true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation's murder victims, it's hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities.

Not to mention:
-Drug war
-Minimum wage
-SS/Medicare=FICA high cost to employ
-OSHA
-Davis Bacon
-Union's high wage

... the idea of "black-on-black crime" taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality-the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg's campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.
**Isn't that in large part because, for example in the case of GZ and TM, the residents of the neighborhood were experiencing young black men breaking into their homes and stealing things? And in that case, it would be irrational to think otherwise.

The author's conclusion:
America is afraid of black people, and that's especially true-it seems-when it thinks they might be angry.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html

Are you afraid of black people? I work with people of all ethnicities every day and I don't think this is real.  Maybe I'm wrong.  What do you think?

Two Wrongs Will Never Make Right

President Obama chipped in with his assurance that "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon." No one could remember a president ever having tried to manipulate a criminal investigation with such blundering tread. NBC News thought it had sealed Mr. Zimmerman's guilt with a falsified recording of him saying: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."

But it was not he who introduced race. After he gave the police dispatcher a general description of the man he was following on the fatal night, the dispatcher asked: "OK, and this guy - is he black, white or Hispanic?"

Mr. Zimmerman answered: "He looks black."

The mob tried from the beginning to make the trial an ordeal by race. When the actual facts reached a jury only the brave could endure such relentless media intimidation.

The only grace note in this sordid opera is that six good women and true stood up to the mob to deliver the only verdict available to reasonable jurors, as unsatisfactory as it is. The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy of a young life taken in the bloom of youth; George Zimmerman will endure the remorse of taking a life for the rest of his days. This was a tragedy, but it was not a tragedy that ended in a travesty of the law.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/15/standing-up-to-the-mob/#ixzz2Z7MPq1uA

Those six ... impressive gumption.

Never Miss a Good Opportunity to Close Your Mouth

Every American can make their own judgment about whether justice was served by the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial but one thing we should all recognize: President Obama's interference in a local law enforcement matter was unprecedented and inappropriate, and he comes away from the case looking badly tarnished by his poor judgment.

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," the president said when asked about the case in the Rose Garden on March 23, 2012, after many had called for Zimmerman's arrest but several weeks before he was charged. "When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/opinion/thernstrom-trayvon-martin-obama/index.html?hpt=op_t1

In that context his statement sounds better, but he should not have put the focus on Trayvon's race. Nevermind the point that if Trayvon had been the President's son, he wouldn't have been walking in the rain and attacking neighborhood watch captains he'd never seen before.

Media - Accountable to Whom?

Early media images of a young Trayvon Martin helped shape coverage.(Photo: Handout via AP)
The storyline quickly took root, amplified by the nearly ubiquitous images of the two: a sweet-looking photo of a several-years-younger Trayvon released by his family, and a mug shot of Zimmerman from a previous arrest in which he looks puffy and downcast. The contrasting images powerfully reinforced the images of the menacing bully and the innocent victim.

Some of the media's major mistakes stemmed from stories that fit neatly into that widely accepted narrative. NBC News edited Zimmerman's comments during a phone call to inaccurately suggest that he volunteered that Trayvon seemed suspicious because he was black. In fact, Zimmerman was responding to a question when he mentioned the teenager's race. The network apologized for the error.

Similarly, ABC News broadcast a story reporting that a police surveillance video showed no evidence that Zimmerman suffered abrasions or bled during the confrontation with Trayvon. Shortly thereafter, it "clarified" the situation, reporting that an enhanced version of the video showed Zimmerman with "an injury to the back of his head."

When it emerged that Zimmerman's mother was Peruvian, some news outlets took to referring to him with the rarely used phrase "white Hispanic," which is kind of like calling President Obama "white black."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news-column-rieder/2516251/

Does journalism exist as a profession? Like the reputation of lawyers, they seem to exist only to hurt others to benefit themselves. Those who make fools of themselves delivering stories that are "good" but not true - do they pay a price?

Will There Be Consequences for the Prosecution/Judge?

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with "prosecutorial misconduct" for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

"That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion."
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/dershowitz-zimmerman-trayvon-martin/2013/07/12/id/514847?promo_code=12AF4-1&utm_source=12AF4Liberty_Unyielding&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

A concise summary of the evidence here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/12/a_morality_tale_that_failed_119186.html

The prosecution has been in the odd habit of calling witnesses who contradict its case against Zimmerman. One of them, a neighbor named John Good, testified that Martin was mounted “MMA-style” on top of Zimmerman, drubbing him in a “ground-and-pound.” A forensic witness called by the defense, Vincent Di Maio, testified that the muzzle of Zimmerman’s gun was against Martin’s clothing, which in turn was several inches away from Martin’s body — facts consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman.

Accounts differ on who was crying out for help that night. Martin’s family says it was Martin; Zimmerman’s family says it was Zimmerman. But Zimmerman is the one who had the injuries, including a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head, consistent with getting beaten up and being in distress.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/12/a_morality_tale_that_failed_119186.html#ixzz2Z22e3Qkt
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Idiot Food

I'm embarrassed to think people still think this way.  If he's guilty, he's guilty, skin color isn't part of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/07/12/race-and-the-george-zimmerman-trial/

To assume on the front end that skin color is part of it is as much a problem as pretending it can never be a part of it, for anyone.

Judge of a "Kangaroo Court?"

"In presiding over the trial of George Zimmerman, Judge Debra Nelson has made some awful rulings — none worse than failing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the preposterous second-degree 'depraved mind' murder charge," McCarthy wrote.

"The state's evidence that Zimmerman had the necessary criminal intent is non-existent, much less sufficient to meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard," he explained. "Compelling evidence, moreover, establishes that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, a claim the state has not come close to refuting."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071213-663605-biased-judge-had-it-in-for-zimmerman.htm#ixzz2YwrBZic8
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071213-663605-biased-judge-had-it-in-for-zimmerman.htm

The State Has Nothing

When I took my first serious look at this case, some six or so months ago, and worked though the existing discovery file, I thought to myself, the State's got nothing. But discovery wasn't complete, perhaps there was critical evidence not yet out.

When the pre-trial Frye hearings took place and the State presented their inept expert witnesses, I thought, the State's got nothing. Judge Nelson agreed, and disallowed their testimony.

When I heard the State's opening statements, and heard them describe the "facts" they said they would prove-knowing, with discovery effectively concluded, that there existed no evidence to support those representations-I thought to myself, the State's got nothing.

When the State rested its case, and a few days later the defense did the same, and still there was nowhere to be seen a coherent, compelling, fact-based narrative of guilt-much less one supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I thought to myself, the State's got nothing.

And this morning, when the State made their bizarre and desperate reach for murder 3 based on child abuse-properly denied by Judge Nelson-I thought to myself, that's the act of a State prosecution team that's got nothing.

This afternoon, throughout a couple of hours of closing argument by the lead attorney on the State prosecution team, Bernie de la Rionda, the truth was finally as concrete and undeniable as a sidewalk to the head-the State has nothing.

This afternoon I heard what was perhaps the most disjointed, fact-free, histrionic, and ineffective closing argument that I've heard delivered by a State prosecutor in a murder case in more than two decades of practicing law.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/states-closing-argument-two-hours-of-raising-doubt/

There's no happy ending here. But I hope the jurors are the kinds of folks who can do their job, and apply to the facts presented by the state to the law.

Coulter's View - Facts You Won't Hear Anywhere Else

I don't like AC, and I hate to quote her but because she's AC, she can say what others can't or won't. Some of these facts are quite relevant to the absurdities spouted by the public rabble rousers.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/071113-663361-zimmerman-should-not-have-been-charged.htm#ixzz2YpafkQue

Responding to the Questions

The author's article, linked here, is very good. I've considered his questions, answers are below.

"So, by extension, the conversation is about whether each of us has a moral responsibility - laws notwithstanding - to do all we can to prevent a tragedy like the one that occurred in Sanford. Regardless of who initiated the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, the two never had to come into close contact. If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle and not pursued the teenager, Martin would have made it home for the second half of the N.B.A. All-Star Game he had been watching and today he would be one year older."
**We do have that responsibility, mostly to make sure our children are safe. Not that I'm suggesting we shouldn't care for the children of others, but the effect we can have on the children of others is only a minute fraction of what we can for our own.

For the record, I think his presumption - that if GZ had stayed in his car TM would have "had time" to make it home - is incorrect. Based on my review of the evidence the state has presented, TM had the time he needed to get home, but he chose not to, which allowed GZ to get close enough for TM to assault him. We can only guess why he made that choice. Based on the physical evidence, it was that choice and his choice to attack GZ, and keep on attacking him, punching him not once but many, many times, that led to his death. It appears possible, even likely, that if at any time prior to being shot he had stopped trying to injure GZ, he would be alive today. I could be wrong in believing that - perhaps GZ would have been mad and injured enough to shoot TM just because he could; but I have not seen any reason to think that's what would have happened. TM texted about his excitement of hitting people. He told a friend his girlfriend left him because she was afraid of the fights TM got into. GZ had a longer period of time to demonstrate any such tendency but he had none, perhaps just because he wasn't a good enough athlete.

In other words, it appears that GZ shot TM because he felt like he was out of options - he called for help, but got none. He maneuvered off of the sidewalk to stop TM from cracking his skull on it, only to have TM try to stop him from breathing by covering his nose and mouth. What was left for a man who was scared, struggling to breath, was completely physically dominated, and was unsure what TM would do after promising to kill him?

I know many will disagree with my interpretation of the evidence. That is an inevitable fact of human experience.

"Technically, only Zimmerman is on trial, but in the broader debate, particularly among people who think Zimmerman innocent, is Martin also on trial? And if so, does that mean that all teens who look and behave similarly to Martin are also on trial? What precedent, if any, would a not-guilty verdict set?"
***I don't think Martin is "on trial", at least in the sense that Martin at this point has nothing to lose, and no rights to defend. GZ's rights are at stake. One need not believe that TM was a monster to have been the aggressor; he was a 17 year old boy in much pain with a taste for fighting. He made bad choices that led to bad outcomes, horrible outcomes. Many of us have made choices as bad but were luckier. However, any teen that attacks a person for "following them" will be as criminally and morally wrong as TM was for attacking GZ. The same physical evidence that is being used to defend GZ could easily be the physical evidence that would have been used to try TM had he survived the evening. Aggravated assault charges would have been easy to make.

"Even if you believe that the teenager at some point during the night's events did something wrong - the defense contends that he "sucker punched" Zimmerman, banged his head on cement and pummeled his face - that teenager is now paying the ultimate price for those alleged mistakes. Does that mean that the person who shot him is guiltless and deserving of no legal punishment?"
***This is an interesting question. Were I in George's shoes, I think I might be filled with regret and pain about the young man's death, even if I felt very, very angry that I was attacked for no reason by the same young man. His punishment is the fear that he and his family will live with from now on. I don't believe the state need provide punishment for a person to suffer punishment for their choices.

"Should "not guilty" as charged (if that were to be the verdict) be read the same as "without guilt" in general? Is there some moral space in which Martin can, as the defense contends, be solely responsible for his own death?"
***This is like a trial of a man who, on a foggy morning, drove at normal speeds through a red light and killed the 21 year old son of the priest at my parents' church. The man was acquitted at trial. In this case, the son who was killed bears zero culpability, the killer all of it. These things happen, and they are not always about race. They may never be about race. This GZ and TM issue only became a matter of race after the fact.

I believe the right to own a gun and carry it is a natural right, conferred by birth. The existence of cars means that most of our lives have been enhanced, but some of our lives are broken or taken by cars. Warplanes mean that we live in peace, but those who operate them are killed, and many civilians have been killed because the planes were used in war to defeat an enemy. Guns are the same - an estimated 500,000 times each year, a person uses a gun for self defense without ever having to fire a shot. TM is dead, though, because GZ chose to have a gun. If the gun weren't present, perhaps GZ would have stayed in his car, or perhaps GZ would have been killed by TM. We don't know what would have happened, we only know what would not have happened.

"The conversation is about people's emotional investment in a version of events and a particular verdict, and why that investment has racial and ideological leanings. It's about the likelihood of one verdict over another. The bar for finding of guilt is particularly high here. The defense doesn't need the jury to see its client as completely innocent, just not completely guilty."
***This is quite true. Based on the articles I have read, the conversations I have had, it is nearly universal - those who most identify with the 17 year old young man strongly believe in GZ's guilt. "He should not have gotten out of the car", "He shouldn't have followed TM." Those who most identify with GZ are horrified that GZ has been charged for murder when he was clearly attacked and severely beaten, apparently without provocation. Sadly, it is doubtful that these two sides will understand each other's perspective, or consider that a perspective other than their own may be valid.

Good Questions to Ponder

"Even if you believe that the teenager at some point during the night's events did something wrong - the defense contends that he "sucker punched" Zimmerman, banged his head on cement and pummeled his face - that teenager is now paying the ultimate price for those alleged mistakes. Does that mean that the person who shot him is guiltless and deserving of no legal punishment?

"Should "not guilty" as charged (if that were to be the verdict) be read the same as "without guilt" in general? Is there some moral space in which Martin can, as the defense contends, be solely responsible for his own death?

"The conversation is about people's emotional investment in a version of events and a particular verdict, and why that investment has racial and ideological leanings. It's about the likelihood of one verdict over another. The bar for finding of guilt is particularly high here. The defense doesn't need the jury to see its client as completely innocent, just not completely guilty."
chblow@nytimes.com.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/opinion/blow-beyond-the-courtroom.html?_r=0

Hear the Screams? That's Logic Being Tortured

Drink deep from the well of knowledge. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

What, then, do you think about this person's tortured logic?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinion/francis-zimmerman-trial/index.html

As far as "stand your ground" goes, you can't just punch someone in the face for following you and then dialing 911 on their phone when you confront them.

Did TM have to go back to his place of residence when he found himself being observed by GZ? No. Did that justify his (apparently felonious) aggravated assault on GZ? No. Can you claim "self defense" after you knock someone to the ground and punch them out? No, once they are no longer a threat, it's no longer self defense to punch them.

The Affidavit

In April 2012, the office of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey drew up an affidavit http://bit.ly/IzCstN of probable cause against George Zimmerman for the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin.

The affidavit was loaded. Martin was walking back to the townhouse "where he was living" when Zimmerman "profiled" him. Zimmerman "assumed Martin was a criminal." He called the police. The affidavit cited Martin's phone "friend" to attest, "Martin was scared because he was being followed by an unknown male and didn't know why." Again, according to the affidavit (and this was critical): "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." Martin's mother then "identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's." Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin, and that apparently was good enough for the prosecutors.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/ten_aha_moments_in_the_zimmerman_trial_to_date.html#ixzz2Yf9TN89o

This affidavit is telling in how weak the state's case is against GZ. GZ profiled him? How would that be proved one way or the other? He called in as a neighborhood watch captain because he saw someone walking in the rain that he did not recognize, and tried to maintain visual contact with that person. The implication is that GZ was a madman or racist with an axe to grind, but every other aspect of GZ's life that has been introduced into this trial paints the picture of a guy who is anything but a racist or hot head.

TM was scared? TM walked up to GZ's car, and walked around it, while GZ was on the phone with the police department.

GZ "confronted" TM? According to what evidence? There is none. TM had plenty of time to get to his residence if what he wanted to do was to get away from GZ. It's not clear why he did not do that, but claiming that TM was afraid is in conflict with the fact that he could have gone home with time to spare before GZ and he crossed paths.

In the struggle that ensued when the two met, GZ was injured, and the testimony indicates that GZ was being beaten up by TM, with TM on top of GZ in a position referred to in MMA fighting as "the mount". The mounted position is dominant, and makes an untrained opponent very vulnerable to the kinds of injuries GZ received from TM.

The statement that TM's mom identified the phone call screams as being those of her son might be the only factual statement in the affidavit - but since she's the only one to do so, that is not a particularly compelling "fact" no matter how horrifying it may be to think of a mom suffering through such an event.

Here's what I see. Just like people don't want to see the JFK murder as the act of a crazy ex-marine with a $12 mail order rifle, there are many who just cannot accept that TM died for no reason. There were no monsters in this affair. TM was a typical, aggressive, athletic 17 year old male, who liked to fight and thought he could take down GZ - and he was right. He just wasn't used to fighting armed opponents, and made a major mis-calculation.

GZ was also no monster - he may not be a saint, and he perhaps should have been able to defend himself without killing the 17 year old - but he did what most of us would do in that situation: broken nose, likely concussed, bloody mucous flowing back into his throat making breathing very difficult, the recipient of multiple punches and having had his head slammed into a concrete sidewalk, having yelled for help over and over (after which TM tried to cover his nose and mouth and threatened to kill him), and with no prospect for a way to end the pain and fear and confusion - he defended himself the only way he could. The circumstance was monstrous but the choice was human.

TM's assault on GZ was not justified. GZ legally defending himself. It was tragic for both of them, and for those who love them. The defense was right - there are no non-political monsters here.

The choices made by those wielding the power of the state, however, have been monstrous.

Stand Your Ground Doesn't Figure Into It

As I have heard Trayvon's parents say time and time again, they are not only fighting for justice for their son, they are fighting for all of us, especially those parents who have to live through the misery of burying their child and the sadness that comes after.

Their inspiring leadership has already led to action. In 2012, for the first time in 8 years, not ONE state in our nation passed a new "Stand Your Ground" law. The power of the NRA and their gun-toting cronies in business were stopped in their tracks by the Justice For Trayvon Martin movement. That is an incredible accomplishment. That is the mission we must continue after this trial is over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-simmons/just-in-case-george-zimme_b_3566397.html

I don't know the author, and I hope that the author's genuine emotional engagement in this case will continue to focus on the positive as described in this article. But I wonder - does the author understand what "stand your ground" legislation means? Does the author realize it isn't a part of the TM/GZ case at all?
Does the author realize that "stand your ground" laws just mean that you or I do not have to run before defending ourselves from risk of grave bodily injury?
Each of us is granted the right to defend ourselves from grave harm at our birth. That right is more primal than the law. A law that requires one to run as the first measure of self defense is a violation of your right and mine.
Any law of self defense that requires one to first flee should be seen as an abrogation of our rights.