Trayvon Martin photos and text messages

[02SE]

Why is this even being discussed again?
Every angle of this ridiculous topic was beat to death in the original thread 14 months ago.

I'm going to say it's worthy of discussing, simply because this newly released information sheds new light on who Trayvon Martin was, at the time of his death.

The Media did their best to portray him as a harmless little boy. Showing pictures that were indeed of a little boy, not the then current pictures of what appears to be a wannabe gangster that this new information suggests. Why didn't the Media show the real Trayvon Martin, back when this first became news?

I'll tell you why; The Media clearly had an agenda.

Showing the real Trayvon Martin, wasn't conducive to that agenda.

 

[Dusty Driftwood]

To be fair, I simply posted about the texts and photos. Other people were interested in rehashing the old stuff all over again.

Really? C'mon bofa. You seem to be a relatively intelligent person so I honestly can't believe you posted this with the expectation that people were just going to say, "Hmmm, that's interesting information that I had not previously considered" and not comment. You had to know that this was going to re-open the whole can of worms. If not, I may have been wrong about my assessment or maybe just naive

I'm going to say it's worthy of discussing, simply because this newly released information sheds new light on who Trayvon Martin was, at the time of his death.

The Media did their best to portray him as a harmless little boy. Showing pictures that were indeed of a little boy, not the then current pictures of what appears to be a wannabe gangster that this new information suggests. Why didn't the Media show the real Trayvon Martin, back when this first became news?

I'll tell you why; The Media clearly had an agenda.

Showing the real Trayvon Martin, wasn't conducive to that agenda.

I'm not going to argue that the media has an agenda. They usually do and probably always will. That's part of the reason I think discussing this is so stupid. There is only 1 person on the planet (Zimmerman) that actually knows what happened and I hardly think he is a credible witness since I doubt he'll be incriminating himself. Everything is purely conjecture.

Do I feel more or less sorry for this kid knowing he wasn't the image of purity and innocence? No. Similar photos were released shortly after the murder that contradicted the innocent little boy image (which I never bought into anyway). They weren't relevant then and they aren't now.
Zimmerman's defense may try to introduce this to distract the jury, but all that really matters is if they think that he was acting in self defense or stepping outside his bounds. And, what we think on a car forum is irrelevant, which is why BS should stay in places like FB, where everyone thinks their opinion matters...

 

[Thai]

I'm not going to argue that the media has an agenda. They usually do and probably always will. That's part of the reason I think discussing this is so stupid. There is only 1 person on the planet (Zimmerman) that actually knows what happened and I hardly think he is a credible witness since I doubt he'll be incriminating himself. Everything is purely conjecture.

Do I feel more or less sorry for this kid knowing he wasn't the image of purity and innocence? No. Similar photos were released shortly after the murder that contradicted the innocent little boy image (which I never bought into anyway). They weren't relevant then and they aren't now.
Zimmerman's defense may try to introduce this to distract the jury, but all that really matters is if they think that he was acting in self defense or stepping outside his bounds. And, what we think on a car forum is irrelevant, which is why BS should stay in places like FB, where everyone thinks their opinion matters...

Dusty, for someone trying to avoid such topics, you sure like to participate in it!!

Why are you so sure that Zimmerman would "incriminate" himself if he was credible? Isn't that showing YOUR bias? :tape: No wonder you're so annoyed by this thread! I would bet that you DID buy into that innocent Obama's little boy image when this first broke! It is relevant because it shows the bias of the media and thus may very well influence the jury's perception. You're intelligent enough to see that, right?

Is Zimmerman defense team' current actions really doing anything different than what The Media did to Zimmerman at the beginning of all this?

BTW, isn't this Off-Topic? Didn't we have thread about T-shirts, dry cleaning, phones, what you ate last night, guns, etc.? Why is this topic off limits in this subforum?? Weird for you to think that.

 

[bofa]

Really? C'mon bofa. You seem to be a relatively intelligent person so I honestly can't believe you posted this with the expectation that people were just going to say, "Hmmm, that's interesting information that I had not previously considered" and not comment. You had to know that this was going to re-open the whole can of worms. If not, I may have been wrong about my assessment or maybe just naive

Look, I posted new and relevant information about something that struck a lot a controversy in the past. This is information that was not previously shared for obvious reasons - information was was newsworthy enough to be posted on multiple news outlets. If people want to get into the old arguments again or even if people want to b!tch about those people doing so, then so be it. I had no intention of getting back into that, but am not one to shy away from thought provoking and interesting discussion.

But this is the off topic forum, and even simple minded people can post their drivel here and they usually do and are easy to spot. If I feel inclined to hash it out with them, I might just do that since I take issue with people that go through life with blinders on and like to be spoon fed what to think. If you didn't know that, you definitely got me all wrong.

 

[Dusty Driftwood]

Dusty, for someone trying to avoid such topics, you sure like to participate in it!!

Why are you so sure that Zimmerman would "incriminate" himself if he was credible? Isn't that showing YOUR bias? :tape: No wonder you're so annoyed by this thread! I would bet that you DID buy into that innocent Obama's little boy image when this first broke! It is relevant because it shows the bias of the media and thus may very well influence the jury's perception. You're intelligent enough to see that, right?

Is Zimmerman defense team' current actions really doing anything different than what The Media did to Zimmerman at the beginning of all this?

BTW, isn't this Off-Topic? Didn't we have thread about T-shirts, dry cleaning, phones, what you ate last night, guns, etc.? Why is this topic off limits in this subforum?? Weird for you to think that.

I've said it before, and I guess it bears repeating, I typically search "today's posts" so I can keep up with what is going on in other generation forums, build threads and the General Disc/Off Topic threads. So, when I saw the thread I thought there might be actual news. Clearly, I was wrong. I don't follow the regular news at all, so I have no idea when "important" things happen.

But, in response to your post, I'm not sure if you made a typo, or didn't see that I actually said, in my opinion, Zimm would't incriminate himself. I also stated that he is the only person that truly knows what happened, not that he was/is credible. Even though he was there, his perceptions still play into his account of what happened, which is not exactly factual.

Again, I don't follow any news (from the left or right side) so I never really know what's going on in the world, just that it isn't important and doesn't matter to me. Ignorance really is bliss (until I log onto T4R and see people discussing it anyway). Don't get me wrong, there are events in history that are important to follow and educate yourself about, such as 9/11. But these everyday stories (Trayvon Martin, Occupy movement, Gun Laws etc, etc, etc) that are turned sensational by the media and seem to attract every sheep in the country just drive me up a wall. For example, very few Americans gave 2 sh1ts about Haiti until the earthquake. And then, wouldn't you know it, everyone cares soooo much about them and their country and their struggle so they can show everyone else what a god dam philanthropist they are. The kids in my neighborhood even opened a lemonade stand to "Save Haiti" and they screamed "SAVE HAITI" at me every time I walked by with my dog that week.
Everyone seems to have an opinion, everyone wants to talk about it around the water cooler and I can't stand shallow BS conversations like that. I'd rather say nothing at all then engage in conversation about a stupid topic I care nothing about.
***I realize my responses to this thread seem to contradict that, but I've been online most of the night while watching the Pittsburgh game and having a few cold ones, so I felt the need to inject my objection to the whole conversation, as frivolous it may be***

This may be a cold approach, but I really don't care that TM was killed or that Zimm in on trial for it. It's part of everyday life in a lot of places. Only in America, it is National news and an opportunity for people to take sides and argue about something. I feel like people follow the news just so they have a bandwagon to jump on to support or hate something.

So, obviously, I'm in the wrong place. Sorry for sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong. Please carry on with your important discussion. For the record, the thread about the dry cleaners was/is much more relevant/interesting to me.

 

[Thai]

But the dry cleaning thread is not interesting to me. Do you see me going into that thread and throwing a hissy fit?

 

[Cory619]

So Zimmerman had no right to self defense when his head was getting bashed into the concrete? I would've done exactly what he did the moment my nose was broken (serious bodily injury) and my head was being bashed into the concrete (serious bodily injury/death). The one issue I've noticed in particular with this tragedy is that the media portrayed TM as a little 14 year old boy. This simply isn't the case. Second, whatever happened prior to the two going toe to toe is irrelevant. All that matters is what caused GZ to fear for his life and use deadly force.

I have 2 brothers and an uncle in LE who are privy to details that none of us are. In general conversation with them, they all say that GZ did nothing wrong and was within his rights.

Not everyone will agree with this, but it is what it is. A jury will determine the outcome based on a preponderance of evidence. But the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ murdered TM. Remember, people have been convicted of murder after someone they punched died after hitting their head on the concrete. So.....head getting bashed into concrete equals self defense.

What is truly disgusting is how the media, the POTUS, the AG and the Black Panthers deprived GZ of being able to receive a fair trial. So, even if GZ is found guilty, his defense can appeal the verdict based on bias created by the POTUS, media, the AG and the Black Panthers.

This is going to be an ugly trial.

 

[Dusty Driftwood]

But the dry cleaning thread is not interesting to me. Do you see me going into that thread and throwing a hissy fit?

Really? You think the two are on the same level?
A thread that can/has escalated (in the past) vs another one that is just Off Topic?
I'm not saying that you should be interested in it. I'm just saying that it is more likely to carry a conversation rather than a debate, of which neither side wins and it just turns into an argument.

But, I guess you're right. I'm not interested in it, so I shouldn't be participating, including complaining about it.

 

[A.Wilson013]

I don't generally comment on these threads, because I know it doesn't matter. I am feeling froggy, however.

In my opinion, if the defense is able to prove that GZ was indeed getting his head smashed into the ground prior to fatally wounding TM, he should be found innocent. Clearly it was self defense.

As Brian has already stated, he's going in front of a jury of his peers... I don't think there will be a liberal bias in the jury. In the trial? Of course.

I wish TM's family the best, and GZ a fair trial.

 

[bofa]

blah blah blah *hiccup*

Well hell, if you were drunk posting you should have just said so. I hold none of yesterday against you. :cheers:

 

[LandCruiser]

You start a fight without cause, get your ass handed to you, then shoot your attacker.

I'm guessing a fair judge/jury would give him manslaughter and probation.

But this is Florida, so hell knows what will happen.

 

[bofa]

You start a fight without cause, get your ass handed to you, then shoot your attacker.

I'm guessing a fair judge/jury would give him manslaughter and probation.

But this is Florida, so hell knows what will happen.

Awful presumptuous there...

 

[Love4myRunner]

For this topic all I can say is that the media and Government can make us believe whatever they want us too. I haven't the slightest idea what happened and never will. Don't really care either tbh. I promise you there are real "hate crimes" and "self defense" cases that happen all the time. The media or whoever just picks certain ones to shine a spot light on. Small things like this shouldn't divide us as people. I hate to see people arguing over stuff like this and over the president... It's not really important. Whats important freedom to bare arms and protect ourselves, Keeping our people safe, Fixing this economy and, remembering this country is GREAT!

Don't let the small stuff distract you from whats really important. Prices are rising, corporation owners are getting greedier, "freedom" now comes with boundaries and rules/laws, people are being killed for no reason and, Most importantly... Few realize it. Stay united if you want to see this country's real power.

 

[LandCruiser]

Awful presumptuous there...

Zimmerman got out of his car and chased down Martin, Martin beat him half to death, Zimmerman shot him dead. It's really hard to defend Florida's stand your ground/castle law when you actively pursue the person you shot off your own property. None of this happened on Zimmerman's property (either his home or car) and you can't say that he or his family were in imminent danger when he called 911. Trayvon was a thug, but you can't prove he was doing anything illegal, especially when you take the testimony of an overzealous neighborhood watch official who provoked him.

That's the entire jist of the case people don't understand. Martin had as much of a right to be there as Zimmerman, Zimmerman never told the dispatcher he was doing anything illegal. Unless there is some magical evidence out there that wasn't disclosed to the media and shows Trayvon doing something illegal (like B&E or vandalism) you STILL can't invoke confronting him under castle law unless someone's life was at risk. And your life coming under threat AFTER you start a fight doesn't really count.

It really has little to do with whether Martin was "a good kid" or "a thug." And if he was doing something illegal, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it. And there are no extenuating circumstances to afford vigilante justice--which this sounds like.

 

[bofa]

see below

I'm going to hit these one by one just to see if you can follow why you may be jumping to conclusions...

Zimmerman got out of his car and chased down Martin
- Following someone suspicious is not necessarily "chasing them down". Based on initial accounts, Zimmerman followed him, Martin noticed, hid around a corner, and ambushed him, allegedly attacking first. While many would not recommend following someone you deem suspicious, I could understand the mindset. What if he was up to no good and got into another residence before the police arrived? How would they have ever found him until after a possible crime was committed? At least by following him you could inform the police which building or unit he entered. Everyone says he should have waited for the cops but at the same time will acknowledge that you can't depend on their response time. Well, which is it?

Martin beat him half to death, Zimmerman shot him dead. It's really hard to defend Florida's stand your ground/castle law when you actively pursue the person you shot off your own property.
-This was a private gated community in which Zimmerman had every right to be in any of the common areas, as did Martin as a guest of his father. The defense has waived their right to a stand your ground hearing, meaning they will likely test those waters with a jury or just push for self defense. In any case, Florida no longer employs the basic castle doctrine as it has been replaced with stand your ground, which, in short, extends the ability to defend yourself with deadly force wherever you may be, assuming you fear death or great bodily harm (you know, like your head getting bashed in).

None of this happened on Zimmerman's property (either his home or car) and you can't say that he or his family were in imminent danger when he called 911.
-See above. He called to report a suspicious person... whether or not that was profiling is a different and less damning issue. You don't have to be in imminent danger to call 911. You do in order to use deadly force for self defense. Again see above.


Trayvon was a thug, but you can't prove he was doing anything illegal, especially when you take the testimony of an overzealous neighborhood watch official who provoked him.
-It doesn't sound like he was doing anything illegal at the time. He just looked suspicious to a person that, based on his active role in the neighborhood, is very familiar with the residents and property in question. We don't necessarily know if Martin was provoked unless you consider pursuit a provocation... which would be absurd in my book, unless you get out and punch every driver that's been behind you on the road. In my opinion, whoever got physical first provoked it. The use of deadly force is still a separate issue.

That's the entire jist of the case people don't understand.
-I don't think you understand. You want him to be guilty so you are overlooking reason.

Martin had as much of a right to be there as Zimmerman
-Agreed

Zimmerman never told the dispatcher he was doing anything illegal.
-See above, he didn't have to do anything illegal to be reported as suspicious.

Unless there is some magical evidence out there that wasn't disclosed to the media and shows Trayvon doing something illegal (like B&E or vandalism) you STILL can't invoke confronting him under castle law unless someone's life was at risk.
-This isn't castle law and even if he was doing something illegal it would not change the law concerning deadly force (unless a forcible felony of course). In most cases stand your ground occurs the moment you feel your life is in danger, assuming you yourself did not do something illegal preceding it, which doesn't appear to have occurred, pending evidence..

And your life coming under threat AFTER you start a fight doesn't really count.
-How do you know who started the fight? I'm sure one of the attorneys would love to hear from you. But if I'm seeing a 5'8" dude going up against a better built ~6' dude, I'm putting my money on the little guy being on the defensive most of the time... but I still don't know for sure.

It really has little to do with whether Martin was "a good kid" or "a thug."
-All the character information does it help justify why he may have been suspicious in the first place and to give reason to the fact that it's possible that he potentially instigated and physically dominated the confrontation. You have a hot headed teenager that is known to get into fights and brags about it. What are the chances he acted first?

And if he was doing something illegal, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it.
-Agreed, unless he struck first, then that might be a little illegal.

And there are no extenuating circumstances to afford vigilante justice--which this sounds like.
-You have a very skewed understanding of vigilante justice. That would be if someone did something and then another person went after them later without involving legal interference. This sounds more like a suspicion that led to pursuit that turned into a physical confrontation that ended with someone getting shot. Whether or not that shooting was justified will play out in court.

And heck I'm just trying to be impartial and open-minded. if that doesn't at least give you a bit of pause, read up on what the other side is saying. Articles: What the Media Choose Not to Know about Trayvon

Sorry Dusty... I said I wouldn't do it but these are the kinds of posts that baffle me.

 

[LandCruiser]

A private citizen has ZERO right to follow me and ask me my intent and I sure as hell would consider it a threat.

If I'm on an evening walk, some neighborhood watch vigilante (can't think of any better word for it) has the right to stalk and confront me? Because he thinks I'm suspicious?

I don't have to answer to POLICE without suspicion of probable cause and in the presence of an attorney. You're telling me Georgie boy fascist lawman of the gated community can chase me down and grill me as to my intent at night because he thinks I'm 'suspicious?'

I think Trayvon had every right to beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement, as far as he was concerned he was being threatened by some jackoff with a gun. Too bad he lost that fight.

 

[Thai]

If I'm on an evening walk, some neighborhood watch vigilante (can't think of any better word for it) has the right to stalk and confront me? Because he thinks I'm suspicious?

Was that what happened? GZ followed Trayvon and confronted Trayvon, which then led to the fight? Or are you just making things up? :doh:

 

[LandCruiser]

Was that what happened? GZ followed Trayvon and confronted Trayvon, which then led to the fight? Or are you just making things up? :doh:

I didn't need to be there to know OJ murdered his wife, Casey Anthony her daughter, or that Zimmerman provoked Martin.

Some things just make too much sense.

 

[ndcent]

If only Treyvon were white.

Sigh.

 

[bofa]

A private citizen has ZERO right to follow me and ask me my intent and I sure as hell would consider it a threat.

If I'm on an evening walk, some neighborhood watch vigilante (can't think of any better word for it) has the right to stalk and confront me? Because he thinks I'm suspicious?

I don't have to answer to POLICE without suspicion of probable cause and in the presence of an attorney. You're telling me Georgie boy fascist lawman of the gated community can chase me down and grill me as to my intent at night because he thinks I'm 'suspicious?'

I think Trayvon had every right to beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement, as far as he was concerned he was being threatened by some jackoff with a gun. Too bad he lost that fight.

You are building a case based on incorrect assumptions.

When you are on private property where you both have a right to be present (or any public property), yes you can be followed. It is obviously uncomfortable, creepy, and can lead to confrontation... but simply following someone is NOT against the law. And without some kind of physical threat being present, you absolutely cannot attack or physically defend yourself preemptively, at least not legally anyway, even in a stand your ground state.

And in your example, yes a person from your neighborhood could follow you and continue to do so until you are in a private area. Most people would get to safety or call 911 for help with the phone in their hand, and a few would even ask the person why they are following. Not many would simply attack and if they did, they would be in the wrong.

You may not have to answer to police, but I bet you wouldn't take a swing at one either. But yes Zimmerman could follow you and even ask you what you are doing there. Nothing illegal about that. You don't have to answer, you cannot be detained without committing a crime, and you certainly don't have to get into a fight. But if you hit him, you just committed assault, and if you injure him in a way that threatens his life, he or even a passer-by could use deadly force against you (in FL).

And again you are making the assumption that Zimmerman threatened him with a gun before the confrontation started. If that's true, then I would agree to Martin defending himself. But it's an assumption at best as is most of the crap you are using to proclaim someone guilty before they've had a fair trial.

ETA: Since you are a Florida resident, I'm going to suggest you read up on stand your ground and how self defense works. And when you do, don't just consider it from the perspective of you defending yourself or using a gun - also consider it from the perspective of others and how they may defend themselves or how others could legally come to their aid. It sounds like you may be the kind of person that would act first because you feel you are being threatened when you may not be, and that can be a very dangerous way to conduct yourself, legally and procedurally in this state.

If only Treyvon were white.

Sigh.

Or if Zimmerman wasn't... oh wait