"If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon."

[Teatownclown]

You are climbing the wrong thread. This one is about a white murderer on the loose due to bigotry. It's not about self defense or badlaw writing.

[Conan71]

Zimmerman has problems with his story.  Now a video has surfaced of him getting out of the police car in which there's no visible evidence that he was even remotely injured.  Granted, it's hard to tell from surveillance video, but with the "severity" of injuries claimed (broken nose, scrapes and blood on the back of the head) it's not readily apparent.  Should we assume they lost the evidentiary photos most PD's would have shot?

Zimmerman's side of the story looks less credible at this point.  Due to the grainy nature of the video I'd still reserve complete damnation for Zimmerman without seeing clear photos of his alleged injuries or wounds.

(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A security video that shows neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman being led in handcuffs from a police car after he fatally shot Trayvon Martin is adding to the debate over whether the shooting was a case of self-defense.

An attorney for the teen's family said it looks to him that Zimmerman doesn't have injuries to his face and head in the video as Zimmerman's supporters have said.

Zimmerman told police he fired in self-defense and he was not arrested, touching off widespread public outrage and protests across the country. Zimmerman's attorney, Craig Sonner, has said in more than one interview that his client's nose was broken during the fight with Martin.

What happened right after Trayvon Martin's shooting?
New details deepen Trayvon Martin controversy
Supporters of Martin shooter fear public backlash

Sanford police Sgt. David Morgenstern on Wednesday confirmed that the video being shown by ABC News is of Zimmerman. The 28-year-old's head and face are visible throughout and he is dressed in a red and black fleece jacket. Police are shown frisking Zimmerman whose hands were handcuffed behind his back. They then lead him into a police station.

"This certainly doesn't look like a man who police said had his nose broken and his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk," Ben Crump, an attorney for Martin's family, said in a statement. "George Zimmerman has no apparent injuries in this video, which dramatically contradicts his version of the events of February 26."

Zimmerman said that on Feb. 26, he was pursuing the 17-year-old Martin, who was not armed, because the teen was acting suspiciously. He said he lost sight of the black teenager and Martin attacked him as he headed back to his sport utility vehicle. Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is Hispanic.

Police did not administer a drug and alcohol test or an immediate background check on Zimmerman, although they did both on Martin.

The next day, detectives re-enacted the shooting with Zimmerman at the scene. They also discovered Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse.

For the next two weeks, lead investigator Chris Serino pursued a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman.

Police interviewed at least six witnesses. But none of them saw how the confrontation began or the shooting that ended it. On March 12, police gave the case to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger. He told them they needed more evidence to arrest Zimmerman.

The case now rests with special prosecutor Angela Corey, who with investigators has been quietly re-interviewing witnesses and examining evidence.

In an interview with Orlando station WOFL FOX 35 that aired Wednesday night, Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman, said that despite dispatchers telling his son to stop following Martin, he kept going so he could get an address for police to check. He said his son was suspicious because of several break-ins and thought it was strange for someone to be walking between the town homes on a rainy night.

The Orlando Sentinel, citing anonymous sources, has reported that Zimmerman told police that Martin grabbed his head and banged it several times against the sidewalk. A statement from Sanford police said the newspaper's story was "consistent" with evidence turned over to prosecutors.

Sonner said the gash on the back of Zimmerman's head probably was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment so the wound was already healing. Miguel Meza, who identified himself as Zimmerman's cousin, said Zimmerman was in "the fight of his life."

Sonner did not immediately return an after-hours call to his office Wednesday.

Crump called the video "riveting" and "icing on the cake" that Zimmerman should be held accountable for what happened.

Since the shooting, Zimmerman's supporters say he's gone into hiding and that he and his family have gotten death threats.

Martin's supporters, including a host of outspoken celebrities and civil rights leaders who have appeared on television for the past two weeks, don't believe Zimmerman's story. They want him arrested and prosecuted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57406183/video-shows-zimmerman-without-blood-bruises/

[Hoss]

You completely missed my point.  I'm not talking about whether or not the self-defender becomes a criminal.

By having to face trial every time someone exercises self-defense, the prosecutor must bring criminal charges.  Ergo, that is criminalizing self-defense if everyone who has been in that situation must stand trial for homicide.  Any time someone is killed there is ALWAYS an investigation of the death.  If that investigation clearly shows the shooter was acting within the law, no charges are brought and there is no need for a trial.  Same as any other investigative process of any other crime or potential crime.  

I agree with Gaspar's point- there's supposed to be a deterrent factor in any of these laws which preserve the right to and clearly defines self-defense.  The police cannot be everywhere at once.

An automatic penalty for defending one's self simply sends the wrong message as to who really has the rights.

Hoss, that mechanism is already in place for review and possible criminal charges to be brought if you defend yourself.  It WILL be investigated.  Anyone who has a CCL is well aware there's the possibility you could end up with manslaughter or murder charges if you act inappropriately.  I personally don't know anyone who carries who does not take that responsibility seriously.

I understand all of that C, but it's response like this:

Except perhaps jail and legal expenses while they wait for trial.  Nothin much.

...

...that make it sound like the process is being marginalized.  I know that even as someone who is still waiting to take his CC class, I take the responsibility of owning a firearm very seriously.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Yeah, somebody doesn't get their nose broken, thrown to the ground, gotten back up without getting blood all over their shirt.

[Conan71]

You are climbing the wrong thread. This one is about a white murderer on the loose due to bigotry. It's not about self defense or badlaw writing.

I'm sorry what makes Zimmerman white and not Hispanic other than sensationalizing the story to keep racial tensions high?  He's actually Jewish/Hispanic.

Why is Zimmerman more white than say, President Obama?  Why doesn't anyone say Obama doesn't care about the plight of black people in America and call him a racist when the statistics are very clear that blacks are suffering the worst in this job climate?

There's stories floating in the press and blogosphere that Zimmerman tutored black kids.  Now this is the reach-around logic people use who are so bent on racial motivation to claim he was a racist bastard:

Some of yall heard, or are going to be hearing about how George Zimmerman used to tutor young black kids...

so the people that are defending george zimmerman are going to be using that as supposed evidence that he's not a racist...

in reality, that actually can show you that he's a racist...

many white racists actually like to help out the "unfortunate black person" as a way to not feel racist...as a way to feel liberal....

many white racists will only deal with black folks if that black individual is in a inferior position...

they wouldn't mind "reaching down" and helping a black person but they would mind when a black person moves in next door to them...

they only deal with black folks on their terms....only when that black person is a inferior position to them...

so this way the white racist will still get to maintain his white privilege and their superiority...

a perfect example of that would be the racist cop from the O.J Trial...Mark Fuhrman....

here goes some of the sh*t he said about black people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrman_tapes

during the trial, when they had him on the stand he used to talk about how he wasn't a racist because he said he used to help out inner city black kids, he would play basketball with them and what not

now why would a racist white guy help out unfortunate black kids?

it's because of the dynamic I said above....
http://forums.projectcovo.com/showthread.php?t=4063031

What a complete load of sick bullshit.  THAT is a case of constructed superiority on the part of the writer. 

[Conan71]

I understand all of that C, but it's response like this:
...

...that make it sound like the process is being marginalized.  I know that even as someone who is still waiting to take his CC class, I take the responsibility of owning a firearm very seriously.

I didn't see it as marginalizing it at all.  BK's comment was pretty left field, you must admit.  That's what Gas was responding to in a semi-sarcastic manner.  Then again you and I DO read Gaspar with different filters.

[we vs us]

An automatic penalty for defending one's self simply sends the wrong message as to who really has the rights.

A trial for murder or manslaughter or assault or whatever isn't a penalty.  It's the mechanism whereby the justice system concludes whether or not the deed was self-defense or not.  

[Cats Cats Cats]

I'm sorry what makes Zimmerman white and not Hispanic other than sensationalizing the story to keep racial tensions high?  He's actually Jewish/Hispanic.

Why is Zimmerman more white than say, President Obama?  Why doesn't anyone say Obama doesn't care about the plight of black people in America and call him a racist when the statistics are very clear that blacks are suffering the worst in this job climate?

There's stories floating in the press and blogosphere that Zimmerman tutored black kids.  Now this is the reach-around logic people use who are so bent on racial motivation to claim he was a racist bastard:

What a complete load of sick bullshit.  THAT is a case of constructed superiority on the part of the writer. 

Good points

[TulsaMoon]

So where in these forums is the outcry for the beating and murder of Bob and Nancy Strait that happened right here in Tulsa?

Has anyone heard of this story as well? http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp

Should it matter if the victim is black or white to get media attention? NO, it should not. Murder is murder no matter if your purple or green, black or white. I see only a mass media coverage and convergence of the all mighty loud mouth Reverends when it benefits them ( the Reverends ). Its about time to realize your color only benefits those that take advantage of color.

[Teatownclown]

So where in these forums is the outcry for the beating and murder of Bob and Nancy Strait that happened right here in Tulsa?

Has anyone heard of this story as well? http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp

Should it matter if the victim is black or white to get media attention? NO, it should not. Murder is murder no matter if your purple or green, black or white. I see only a mass media coverage and convergence of the all mighty loud mouth Reverends when it benefits them ( the Reverends ). Its about time to realize your color only benefits those that take advantage of color.

WRONG THREAD!

EVERYONE! PLEASE STOP WITH THESE FALSE EQUIVALENCIES!

[Conan71]

A trial for murder or manslaughter or assault or whatever isn't a penalty.  It's the mechanism whereby the justice system concludes whether or not the deed was self-defense or not.  

Really?  You wouldn't consider thousands of dollars in legal fees, missed time from work if you could even still keep your job due to the demands of meeting with attorneys, showing up for court appearances for over a year or two, etc. a penalty?  Can you honestly say if you went through that you hadn't been penalized?  Why should I be subjected to thousands in legal fees and why should my employer have to miss my services, and my family be dragged through that stress because I legally defended myself?

You and a couple others seem to keep missing the point that the police and prosecutor review every single homicide case- there is an established process.  Those which are determined justifiable do not go to trial as they should not.  Certainly, if I acted in a grey area or there was no clear threat, I would expect to be put on trial. 

Being concerned about whether or not I'm about to A) Be arrested and jailed B) Face thousands in legal bills and wasted time and C) Face possible imprisonment should be the last thing on my mind when I'm protecting myself or others either on my property or I'm faced with someone who is armed and has clear intention to harm myself or those with me.

If your concern is to create a deterrent to vigilantism, you need to realize that most everyone who carries or keeps a weapon handy in their house takes that responsibility very seriously.  In fact, they seem to be far more aware of potential consequences than someone acting criminally does.

[we vs us]

Really?  You wouldn't consider thousands of dollars in legal fees, missed time from work if you could even still keep your job due to the demands of meeting with attorneys, showing up for court appearances for over a year or two, etc. a penalty?  Can you honestly say if you went through that you hadn't been penalized?  Why should I be subjected to thousands in legal fees and why should my employer have to miss my services, and my family be dragged through that stress because I legally defended myself?

You and a couple others seem to keep missing the point that the police and prosecutor review every single homicide case- there is an established process.  Those which are determined justifiable do not go to trial as they should not.  Certainly, if I acted in a grey area or there was no clear threat, I would expect to be put on trial. 

Being concerned about whether or not I'm about to A) Be arrested and jailed B) Face thousands in legal bills and wasted time and C) Face possible imprisonment should be the last thing on my mind when I'm protecting myself or others either on my property or I'm faced with someone who is armed and has clear intention to harm myself or those with me.

If your concern is to create a deterrent to vigilantism, you need to realize that most everyone who carries or keeps a weapon handy in their house takes that responsibility very seriously.  In fact, they seem to be far more aware of potential consequences than someone acting criminally does.

Time/money spent on attorneys, court appearances, etc aren't a penalty.  They may be costs but they aren't levied as specific punishments for a crime committed.  You're muddying what a trial is for: which is to determine guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law.  Killing someone -- whether in self defense or not -- is one of the most serious crimes in our civil and criminal codes.  It's so serious that in other contexts and situations we see fit to execute killers.  It's crucial for the state, therefore, to determine to the best of its ability whether or not the killing in question deserves punishment or not.   

Why should I believe you when you say it was self-defense?  I'm sorry but I don't care how serious you take your conceal/carry responsibilities.  I want to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether you hunted the kid down or if you were in fact attacked and were defending yourself.  Justice demands it, because the person who might be there to defend themselves in court is dead.

And re: police review . . . especially in the Zimmerman/Martin case, it's looking like the police themselves were actually going to press charges against Zimmerman, but the prosecutors slow-played the investigation, at least in part because of concerns about legal hurdles surrounding the stand your ground law.  In this case especially, the national protests served to move the case past institutional disagreements and/or hesitation and get it into court where Zimmerman's story (such as it is) can be examined.  Protests like these aren't always a good strategy and they don't always end up with a positive outcome -- I'm not a kneejerk fan of marching in the streets for any slight.  But up to this point, in this particular case, it's done a lot of things the authorities in FLA couldn't/wouldn't do themselves.

[Gaspar]

I'm sorry what makes Zimmerman white and not Hispanic other than sensationalizing the story to keep racial tensions high?  He's actually Jewish/Hispanic.

Why is Zimmerman more white than say, President Obama?  Why doesn't anyone say Obama doesn't care about the plight of black people in America and call him a racist when the statistics are very clear that blacks are suffering the worst in this job climate?

There's stories floating in the press and blogosphere that Zimmerman tutored black kids.  Now this is the reach-around logic people use who are so bent on racial motivation to claim he was a racist bastard:

What a complete load of sick bullshit.  THAT is a case of constructed superiority on the part of the writer. 

The New York Times has addressed this.  They are now referring to him as "WHITE Hispanic."

I suppose they will be referring to President Obama now as WHITE African American.  I'm anxious to see how that plays out.

[we vs us]

And re: Zimmerman and race . . . Zimmerman's race doesn't matter (except to TTC).  What matters is that he chose to pursue Martin specifically because he was black.    

[Conan71]

Time/money spent on attorneys, court appearances, etc aren't a penalty. 

Just...wow!

When it's a disruption of your normal life and you have to cash in your child's college fund to defend yourself that's a penalty.  To claim otherwise is nothing but parsing.

As far as the rest of your argument, if the PD and DA are irresponsible or there are suspected irregularities, that's what a grand jury is for.  Again, you and a few others apparently do not appreciate there is already a very good process in place specifically for these situations.

Your argument borders on infringement of 2nd and 5th amendment as well as basic Constitutional rights.

Should every single person accused of a crime stand trial?  That's why DA offices review every single case prior to making a determination of whether or not there is enough merit to prosecute.  A) it prevents the court system from being clogged B) it serves as a check and balance system to make sure wrongly-arrested people are not forced to go through the expense and time of criminal prosecution.