From around the blogroll

Your editor has the extreme privilege of working this Saturday, and hasn’t really any particular theme on which he wishes to write this evening, so I’ll take the easy way out point out some of the other interesting articles I’ve seen.

First of all, from William Teach: Having Solved All Of America’s Problems, Dem Senate To Hold Hearing On NFL Bounties. Yup, that’s right: the United States Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over three years now, the country is staring at a major long-term debt crisis, and the Distinguished Gentlemen think that they have time to investigate the “bounty” system discovered o the New Orleans Saints.

Also from Mr Teach: DOJ Argues No Severability With ObamaCare Mandate. The Obama Administration has made the (actually pretty reasonable) argument to the Supreme Court that the Affordable Care Act provision which prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition cannot stand if the individual mandate is invalidated.

Several people have written about Rick Santorum’s suggestion that we might be no worse off with Barack Obama than Mitt Romney as President:

You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future.

Sister Toldjah, Patterico, Allahpundit and Robert Stacy McCain have some discussion.

The Lonely Conservative noted President Obama’s odd choice for head of the World Bank. It seems that Dr Jim Yong Kim’s background is in academia and health, not economics or finance. Shouldn’t someone with experience in, oh, banking, be a more logical choice?

Tina Korbe noted Mitt Romney’s increasing support among registered Republicans:

Rick Santorum still leads in Louisiana, but the three-quarters of voters there who think Mitt Romney will still be the nominee might be right. According to Gallup’s daily tracking poll, the former Massachusetts governor has the widest lead he’s had in weeks:

Romney has the backing of 40% of registered Republicans nationwide, while Santorum comes in with 26%, according to Gallup’s daily tracking poll.

The 40% threshold also marks the highest point ever for Romney (or any other candidate) since the daily survey began measuring support in early November.

The poll shows a six-point increase for Romney since Tuesday, the same day he won the Illinois primary. Meanwhile, Santorum dropped four points in the same time period.

So dies the myth that Mitt Romney can’t attract more than 25 percent of the vote? Perhaps it wasn’t a ceiling, but a floor, after all. That’s the most positive part of this poll — that Republicans might rally after all to whoever becomes the nominee even if that nominee is Romney.

ALa is getting a puppy.

The Laughing Conservative sneaked (snuck?) into the White House and read the President’s diary.

And finally, via Donald Douglas, a Katy Perry video:

The video was filmed at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in Oceanside, California, over three days, and all of the others in the video are real Marines; no actors, no dancers, just Marines.

It reminds me that I have to get to work on our version of Rule 5 Blogging for tomorrow!

296 Comments

  1. “So you race-baiting, absolutely racist Socialist clowns (PIATOR AND WAGONWHEEL) can kindly stuff it so far up your nether regions you can taste it in the back of your throats!”

    What pray tell does your ancestry have to do with this case, not to mention that you have told us about it ad nauseum?

    And then we have a smart-aleck nostrum here from the one who swears himself to be a Christian. I don’t believe it, never have, because actions speak more loudly than mere religious words and proclamations and biblical quotes!

  2. What pray tell does the ancestry of a black man have to do with this case?

    Now that, Wagonwheel, is a very good question! Why don’t you answer it?

    I know! Just like the hypocritical Socialist you are, you’ll claim that’s different!

    You have just now declared nobody’s ancestry has anything to do with current events! And now you’ll have to lie your way back out of it or admit you’ve been race-baiting all along!

  3. My ancestors were hunted down and murdered merely because they were Irish!
    My ancestors were hunted down and murdered merely because they were not only Irish, but Catholics, to boot!
    My ancestors were hunted down and murdered merely because they were Indians!
    My ancestors were hunted down and murdered merely because they were Mexicans!

    And I was persecuted in small-town fly-over country throughout my childhood merely because I was an unwealthy Christian who didn’t swear, go to drunk parties, or have sexual relations with girls — and accused of being homosexual because my Christian faith prevented me from “doing” girls, just like all the dogs in the schools and in people’s back yards!

    I have plenty of hereditary reason to play victim! I have plenty of personal reason to play victim! And yet, I don’t! Imagine that!

  4. Good research Koolo.

    So, the news reports that the 5’9″ or maybe 5’8″ Zimmerman was well over 200 lbs, up to 250, are outdated and therefore false in the present case.

    This then, makes it more plausible that Zimmerman could have pursued Trayvon for some distance after Trayvon first approached Zimmerman in his truck and then ran off half a minute or so later. It also however reapportions any physical confrontation.

    Although Zimmerman has not grown in physical stature, he has shrunk in mass, to a weight (if Trayvon was in fact 160lbs at the time of his death) comparable at 170 to Trayvon’s; whereas Trayvon remains 4 to 6 inches taller. If Zimmerman was not too fat to pursue, he was also much less mass-y (impressive) than his detractors have been saying, as well as shorter.

    I suppose it is entirely possible that a 170 lb 5’8 man would pursue and attack a 6’2″ male of approximately the same weight, especially if he had a weapon.

    But at the same time it makes any scenario wherein Trayvon, no longer the 12 year old shown in the original photos, would be able to successfully confront and drop another male with a sucker punch to the nose, that much more plausible as well. Especially if he didn’t know his opponent was armed.

    I wonder what Perry makes of Trayvon’s reputed tweets …

    If they are authentic, what if anything would they tell Perry of Trayvon’s character?

    And of course, the very image and information that led many – including myself – to conclude that Zimmerman was 230 plus, was a mug shot. What would a close analysis of the circumstances of his arrest amount to?

    Too bad so many have so much emotion invested in this case that they cannot wait for the facts.

  5. Mr Hitchcock wrote:

    I do know my grandson has a higher percentage of black blood coursing through his veins than does Obama. I do know my grandson has a lower percentage of white blood coursing through his veins than does Obama.

    Odd: to the best of my knowledge, all of the blood coursing through our veins is red.

  6. Let’s see, the police took Zimmerman into custody, questioned him, and recommended he be charged. The county prosecutors looked at the case and declined to bring charges.

    Next, the governor removed the prosecuting attorneys from the case and assigned a special investigator to examine the circumstances of Treyvon Martin’s death.

    Now, the Leftist lynch mob is calling for Zimmerman’s arrest before the investigation is complete. They’re selling tickets to the hanging, the circus is in town. Any bloodthirsty moonbat dressed in a white sheet gets free admission.

  7. WW wrote:

    Stop obfuscating the issue here, koolo, which is that a black teenager has been murdered by a self-appointed neighborhood watchdog, who was also told not to do so but continued to invade Trayvon’s space anyway. Does it surprise anyone that this person should be attacked?

    Oh, are you now stating that Mr Martin did attack Mr Zimmerman?

    And the murderer has yet to be arrested, a month after his alleged crime. Common sense and a sense of justice dictates that there is something seriously wrong in this case.

    You have just proclaimed this to be a murder, but that has not been determined. Not all homicides are murders, as you well know. If there is insufficient evidence to declare the killing a murder, or even a crime, as determined by the law enforcement officials whose job it is to make such determinations, how could Mr Zimmerman be arrested? To be arrested, he has to be charged with a crime; no crime has been charged yet.

    Supposedly, the local prosecutor told the law enforcement officials that there was insufficient evidence to convict Mr Zimmerman. If that’s the case, an arrest would be totally improper. If sufficient evidence is developed later for such a charge to be reasonably prosecuted, then Mr Zimmerman could be arrested.

    Instead of justice, koolo and his right-wing racist compatriots have opted to politicize this issue. For shame!

    [guffaws!] Just who was it who raised the issue on this site, in the very first comment on this thread?

    Mr Editor, all the issues you have listed would make for interesting discussion and debate, but most telling is the fact that you left out probably the most telling issue in our headlines these days: The murder of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL, by a self-appointed vigilante.

    You might want to ask yourself why this omission, Mr Editor?

    PS: That said, I like your inclusion of an open forum, which then enables commenters to pick their own topic of interest for discussion.

    My response (the second comment on this thread) was to point out the obvious:

    I haven’t discussed the death of Trayvon Martin because we don’t have all of the facts on that unfortunate incident. It’s being played up in the media as wanna-be cop just plain murders innocent black kid, but the emotions involved and the fever-pitch of the discussions elsewhere don’t give me any confidence that we really know all of the facts.

    The editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer, among others, have used the incident to attack the “stand your ground” law in Florida, but that hardly seems appropriate. Geraldo Rivera noted that Mr Martin’s dress, the wearing of a “hoodie” and “gangsta” clothes, might have contributed to George Zimmerman believing that Mr Martin really was a “gangsta.” Me, I just plain don’t know what happened.

    I’ve yet to figure out how not raising the issue and saying that we don’t have all of the facts is somehow “politiciz(ing) this issue,” while, in your very first comment, you proclaimed it a “murder” by a “self-appointed vigilante” is not.

  8. Perry writes regarding Zimmerman:

    ” … but [Zimmerman] continued to invade Trayvon’s space anyway. Does it surprise anyone that this person should be attacked?”

    Are you stating that it is now your view that Trayvon probably did initiate the physical assault and battery?

    Are you saying that it should be expected that Zimmerman would undergo a physical attack for invading “Trayvon’s space”?

    Are you categorically asserting that the attack did in fact take place during an active invasion of “Trayvon’s space”?

    Or are you acknowledging that this so-called invasion of “Travon’s space” may have taken place with no physical contact?

    Are you including in your scenario of expected consequences, that the unsurprising attack which followed the (in your words) invasion of “Trayvon’s space”, might have taken place after the so-called invasion was broken off?

    Are you saying that if Zimmerman was physically assaulted and attacked and battered by Trayvon, for invading “Trayvon’s space”, and not for laying hands on Trayvon, that Zimmerman was unjustified in killing Trayvon in order to stop the battery (if indeed that is how such a killing were to take place)?

  9. No, DNW. All I am saying is that Zimmerman continued to invade Trayvon’s space, according to Trayvon’s girl friend and this witness claim:

    Sounds pretty solid to me. We’ll see what the Grand Jury decides following their April 10th hearing.

    “Mary Cutcher told Dateline that she and her roommate both saw Zimmerman “straddling the body, basically a foot on both sides of Trayvon’s body, and his hands pressed on his back.”

    Cutcher added that Zimmerman told her and her roommate to call the police.”

  10. Horse apples! Perry, that’s just more dishonest claptrap from you, as usual.

    Treyvron stopped talking to his girlfrined prior to the physical confrontation, she heard sounds but she has no way of knowing who approached who, and neither do you or anyones else, except Zimmerman himself.

    And Treyvon was already shot and possibly dead when Mary Crutcher saw Zimmerman standing over Treyvon’s body. She has said nothing about the events prior to the shooting.

    If all you have nothing warmed over pablum and racist bigotry to offer.

  11. Wagonwheel says:
    March 29, 2012 at 15:52

    No, DNW. All I am saying is that Zimmerman continued to invade Trayvon’s space,”

    I’d ask how you know that, but the fact is that you do not know. You merely assert on the basis of a post hoc rationalization, and “evidence” from an anonymous girlfriend we have already considered, and which can – insofar as it has been reported – be interpreted as actually supporting the hypothesis that Trayvon rounded back on, and then attacked, Zimmerman.

    We don’t know. I don’t profess to.

    Wouldn’t you also be better off admitting that you don’t know; and then resigning your post as a self-appointed prosecutor, while allowing the facts to come out?

    But more abstractly in considering your thesis: How much space defines the principle of “Trayvon’s space”; and at what point is a violent reaction to an invader to be expected once that invader has, even non-violently we assume, crossed over the boundary of a so-called “Trayvon’s space” limit?

    What is it? A 10 inch radius from any point of the body? How about 4 feet? Twenty feet? A foot onto your private property? How about any insistent and unwelcome presence in your life?

    I’d like to know for example, at what point you grant moral justice permission to people to physically smash someone that gets too close and demanding, Perry. After all, you say it’s only to be expected.

  12. OK, ropelight. Here are some simple questions for you, or any others on here: Why did not the Sanford PD arrest Zimmerman and intensely question him? Is not that what you would have expected to happen? Do you think Trayvon’s parents are asking too much to have justice for the murder of their son?

  13. Now we have DNW playing the “we don’t know” game.

    The murder occurred on a sidewalk. Zimmerman had departed his vehicle to follow the victim. After having been told by the 911 dispatcher not to continue following the victim, Zimmerman pursued him anyway, and was attacked on the same sidewalk where the victim was shot. I would define that as Zimmerman having invaded the victim’s space, wouldn’t you, or are you going to continue playing the role of the defense attorney who will say anything to cast doubt on the behavior of an alleged murderer?

  14. “My ancestors were hunted down and murdered merely because they were Irish!”

    I thought it was because they wore those strange green costumes and shaved the mustaches off their beards.

    Actually there’s something I didn’t know until I started studying Irish history. Modern Irish history I mean. I’m familiar with the history of the Celtic Church: Ireland it is claimed is in measure as treeless as it has recently been, because the forests were in part cut down, to prevent Irish nationalists and patriots from seeking refuge in them. The island is compact enough to make it possible, and the claim plausible.

    Edmund Campion reports the Irish as an engaging race, and he seemed to like them.

    But we know what happened to him as well.

  15. Perry, the first answer you asked for is contained in my comment at 15:08 above.

    Also, you persist in referring to the murder of Teryvon Martin. That’s yet to be determined, as usual you’re going off half cocked.

    And, no, if it’s justice Treyvon’s parents are seeking they aren’t asking for too much not if they also seek justice for George Zimmerman, otherwise it’s not justice they seek.

  16. “Of course these scatter-brained racists would, koolo included.”

    One notices that they’ve expressed outrage, they’ve bleated about their own ancestory, and they’ve doubled down on the speculation, untruths, accusations of race-baiting and justifications for killing Martin – but the one thing they haven’t done is answer the questions.

    The evasion or inability to come to grips with those questions speaks volumes about their cognitive dissonance.

    Once again,

    - Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, really, that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, the Sanford Police wouldn’t have arrested Zimmerman?

    - Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, honestly,really, believe that if a 250 lb black guy had chased down and shot a 140 lb 17 year old white guy with a bag of skittles under identical circumstances, that THEY THEMSELVES would be going through the contortions and twisted logic above to try and justify the shooter as innocent?

    We all know the answer to these questions just as we know the reason why the RWA commentators here are squirming around trying to avoid even thinking about those questions.

  17. And once again Charles Pierce is doing a sterling job as an Internet reporter:

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/trayvon-martin-gun-control-7698424

    —-
    The most salient piece of evidence to me that George Zimmerman was off the rails in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin always has been the fact that the police dispatcher on his 911 call specifically told him not to pursue the unarmed teenager. Zimmerman ignored the cop and went after Martin anyway, with lethal consequences. I’ve always felt that at least part of the Sanford Police Department — probably the grunts in the patrol cars, since upper echelons seem to have been dedicated to throwing this case right from the start — had to be extraordinarily furious over being thrown into the jackpot this way by a gun-toting wannabe who already had a long history as the local pain in the ass, and who even took a swing at one of their own a few years back. I think we’re seeing the fallout from that now. It’s pretty clear that local law-enforcement is in turmoil.

    First, we had the leaks about the victim. The plastic bag that might have contained marijuana some time this decade. The suspension from high school. This all pretty clearly came from law-enforcement. All of this, coordinated with the sudden omnipresence of “good friend” Joe Oliver, and the promulgation of the tale that Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman, breaking his nose, and then getting on top of him, smashing his head repeatedly into the sidewalk. That lasted about a day. Then, suddenly, on Wednesday, ABC comes up with the video of Zimmerman’s arrival at the cop shop in which no injuries of any kind are evident on his nose, his head, or anywhere else. (Apparently, the EMT’s in Sanford did their training at Lourdes.) It is not in any way to diminish the reporting done by ABC to point out that somebody else in law-enforcement wanted this video out so as to counteract the narrative that was under construction through the other leaks. Is this any way to run a criminal-justice system? No. But it’s the way ours operates almost every day in every city and town in the country.
    —-

  18. wheelwheel :) wrote:

    OK, ropelight. Here are some simple questions for you, or any others on here: Why did not the Sanford PD arrest Zimmerman and intensely question him? Is not that what you would have expected to happen? Do you think Trayvon’s parents are asking too much to have justice for the murder of their son?

    We’ve seen the photos already, of the police, with Mr Zimmerman in handcuffs. That looks to me like an arrest. And they did question him; whether or not you’d call it “intensely” I do not know, though, somehow, I have this mental image of being “intensely questioned” meaning on a three-legged stool, with one bare light bulb (a politically incorrect incandescent one, natch!) over his head, while the shadowed, cigar-smoking cops are berating him. Was that what you meant?

    However, after he was questioned, either the police or the local prosecutor (which is how one story has it) decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to obtain a conviction, so he was released.

  19. Wagonwheel wrote:

    The murder occurred on a sidewalk. Zimmerman had departed his vehicle to follow the victim. After having been told by the 911 dispatcher not to continue following the victim, Zimmerman pursued him anyway, and was attacked on the same sidewalk where the victim was shot. I would define that as Zimmerman having invaded the victim’s space, wouldn’t you, or are you going to continue playing the role of the defense attorney who will say anything to cast doubt on the behavior of an alleged murderer?

    On the same sidewalk? OK, then you need to define how close one can approach another pedestrian on a sidewalk before such an approach becomes an invasion of one’s personal space, justifying an assault.

  20. The odd thing is that there are only four possible legal outcomes:

    1. George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, and will be convicted and spend many, many years in prison;
    2. George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, but will not be convicted, and remain a free man;
    3. George Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, and responded with legally valid deadly force, but will be railroaded and convicted anyway; or
    4. George Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, and responded with legally valid deadly force, and will not be convicted of any crime, and remain a free man.

    Being the good-hearted soul that he is, Wagonwheel ought to be hoping that he is wrong about his belief, and that scenario #4 is the correct one. After all, Mr Martin is dead, and cannot be brought back to life. If scenario #4 winds up being the correct one, Mr Martin will still be dead, but Mr Zimmerman will not be wasting away in prison for the rest of his life. Logically, that is the best outcome, and the one someone like Wagonwheel ought to hope is the correct one.

  21. Wagonwheel says:
    March 29, 2012 at 17:13

    Now we have DNW playing the “we don’t know” game.

    The murder “

    Murder is a legal term. We do not know that it was an unlawful killing. The authorities had evaluated it as there being insufficient evidence to conclude it definitely was, on any level at all.

    That is precisely what is in dispute.

    occurred on a sidewalk.

    Possibly.

    ” Zimmerman had departed his vehicle to follow the victim. ”

    True insofar as laid out on the 911 tape timeline.

    “After having been told by the 911 dispatcher not to continue following the victim, Zimmerman pursued him anyway”

    Not according to the 911 tape recording and timeline, and not demonstrated by any evidence which you have produced.

    ” and was attacked on the same sidewalk where the victim was shot. “

    Now you have interestingly taken to the tack of stipulating that Zimmerman was in fact attacked by Trayvon first, but that he somehow deserved it, or that it should be expected.

    What caused you to abandon your earlier contention that Zimmerman followed, caught up with, initiated an assault upon, and then slew Trayvon all of a piece?

    Probably that you realized that you cannot substantiate it, and that there is too much reportage to the contrary.

    “I would define that as Zimmerman having invaded the victim’s space, wouldn’t you,”

    You are morally insane, and a danger to yourself and others if you are in any way serious about what you are implying.

    ” … or are you going to continue playing the role of the defense attorney who will say anything to cast doubt on the behavior of an alleged murderer?”

    I earlier predicted that if all the evidence were exculpatory as far as Zimmerman were concerned (and I said I didn’t think that it all would be) and: that if Zimmerman had immediately ceased trailing on the dispatcher’s suggestion; and if he never in fact caught up with Trayvon on his own; and if he had in fact been returning to his car or merely making an indirect return; and that if he was then pursued by Trayvon in a turn-about situation; and if Zimmerman was in fact approached from behind by an indignant or outraged Trayvon, and sucker punched in the face, and knocked down and pummeled, and had his head banged against the pavement; and if Zimmerman had then killed Trayvon in the very process of Zimmerman’s being uninterruptedly beaten (which I doubt was the case) by Trayvon, that then, even under all those circumstances, the left would proclaim the killing of Trayvon as “murder”.

    And, as we see, I was correct in that hypothetical.

    The left will justify a potentially lethal physical assault and battery, predicated upon nothing more than the hypothetical scenario of an indignant young man feeling his space has been invaded by a soon to be victim.

    Perry posits no initiation of force or physical contact by Zimmerman as morally necessary to provoke an expected attack.

    Perry posits not even the necessity of a verbal confrontation initiated by Zimmerman, as morally required to provoke the expectation of an attack.

    Perry does not even posit the circumstance of Zimmerman catching up with a simultaneously retreating Trayvon, without initiating a verbal confrontation, as something morally necessary to precipitate an expected attack.

    By default then, Perry argues that none of these circumstances were morally necessary to result in an expected attack on Zimmerman.

    Which is what I predicted would be the left’s position ultimately; if the reporting did not follow their initial claims regarding the so-called facts.

  22. Have any of these lefties actually listened to Zimmerman’s 911 call tape?

    If these lefties have proved anything they have proved only that they are not fitted by intellect or emotion or character, to be the political peers of self-governing men and women. They drag everything they come into contact with, into the same sump in which their own degraded and festering psyches dwell. By god, what a psychologically disturbed class.

  23. Miss Nova wrote:

    Once again,

    - Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, really, that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, the Sanford Police wouldn’t have arrested Zimmerman?

    If we assume that, other than the races of the individuals, everything else remained the same, and the local prosecutor told the police that there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction, what other choice would they have had but to release him?

    You are proceeding from a race-only point of view, but you don’t know all of the facts; none of us really does. We weren’t tere, and we are getting our information through many filters, some of which are biased, and some of which are contradictory. This case should be determined by the facts, not by the races of the individuals.

    - Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, honestly,really, believe that if a 250 lb black guy had chased down and shot a 140 lb 17 year old white guy with a bag of skittles under identical circumstances, that THEY THEMSELVES would be going through the contortions and twisted logic above to try and justify the shooter as innocent?

    Actually, no one here has said that Mr Zimmerman is innocent. We have said that we don’t know, but that there has been a rush to lynching judgement by people who also don’t know what happened.

    I remembered having written about Amanda Marcotte and her rush to judgement concerning the Duke lacrosse team not-rape case back on CSPT. So, I went back in the archives, to this article. It referenced Miss Marcotte’s original, Stuck at the airport again, but that article has been scrubbed from history.

    Now, what I was actually looking for was whether a particular commenter from New Zealand — perhaps you’ve met him? — had rushed to judgement there, but, alas! with the article scrubbed, there was no such evidence. I did have this footnote:

    Whilst doing the research for this, I did find our friend Phoenician in a Time of Romans’ website!

    Apparently, he commented on at least one of Miss Marcotte’s Duke lacrosse team postings. I wonder: did he rush to judgement on that one, too?

    We all know the answer to these questions just as we know the reason why the RWA commentators here are squirming around trying to avoid even thinking about those questions.

    Well, you certainly believe that you know the answers, but you really don’t.

  24. Miss Nova wrote:

    Once again,

    - Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, really, that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, the Sanford Police wouldn’t have arrested Zimmerman?

    The answer is simple. We either would not heard about it, or it would have been buried on pg C24 of the local newspaper and given an inch and a half of print space. Black on Black – doesn’t sell newspapers or get TV news coverage. Black on white – Might get 2 days mention, then forgotten. White on Black – The world as we knew it has come to an end.

  25. And I’d point out that my position on this has been completely consistent with what I wrote concerning the Duke not-rape case:


    Stereotyping


    Posted by Dana Pico on 30 June 2006, 7:04 pm

    I have resisted writing about the rape charges against three members of the Duke Lacross team until now — and I’m still hesitant. I am unwilling to prejudge a case like this, outside of a courtroom, possessing only partial evidence, evidence that is usually presented intentionally partially, because it is presented by people with an axe to grind.

    In this case, you have a young woman, who happens to be black, who was hired as a stripper for a party by the lacrosse team. The woman made a complaint to the police that she had been raped by three white members of the lacrosse team.

    We immediately started getting people putting in their 2¢. DNA samples taken from the woman did not match any of the three accused men, we have been told, although the people telling us this are supporters of the accused. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who, lacking anything meaningful to say about civil rights anymore now that the civil rights struggles are long over (and won by his side), never fails to hustle a potential racial issue, immediately jumped into the fray to support the young woman. Stories about the lady’s past incidents with the law and possibly less than stellar reputation for telling the truth have abounded.

    Now Tyrone of Wake Up, Black America has documented the entrance of the New Black Panther Party into the issue. Apparently the NBPP has assumed that the accused simply must be guilty, because the accuser is black and the accused are white.

    I will admit that, from what I’ve heard about the case, it hardly seems likely that the prosecution could win convictions if the trial is fair and the jury unbiased. But, as noted earlier, I certainly haven’t heard everything, and it seems odd that the prosecutor would hang his reputation on a case that seems so weak according to the public information.

    One thing that should have been learned from the Duke case was that people making snap judgements about a possible criminal case in which they don’t have all the facts, based primarily on the race of the individuals involved, is a really good way to set themselves up to look like fools.

  26. Of course they haven’t learned a thing, they’re too blindly obedient and stupidly wedded to an outworn creed to learn from experience. They just repeat the formula, ad nauseam.

    Same media circus, same race hustlers, same Black Panther thugs, same lynch mob, same useful idiots spouting the same racist lies.

  27. “The answer is simple. We either would not heard about it, or it would have been buried on pg C24 of the local newspaper and given an inch and a half of print space. ”

    That wasn’t the question, Mr Yorkshire. Please pay attention.

    - Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, really, that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, the Sanford Police wouldn’t have arrested Zimmerman?

  28. ” – Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, really, that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, the Sanford Police wouldn’t have arrested Zimmerman?

    If we assume that, other than the races of the individuals, everything else remained the same, and the local prosecutor told the police that there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction, what other choice would they have had but to release him?”

    But they didn’t just “release” Zimmerman, Mr Editor – they didn’t even arrest him. And if he had been a black guy shooting a white guy (and, for that matter, if his father hadn’t been a former judge), the local prosecutor might had a very different opinion.

    So I didn’t say “release”, Mr Editor. Again, you seem to be evading the question.

    Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, really, that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, the Sanford Police wouldn’t have arrested Zimmerman?

    If a black guy had been told not to follow an unarmed white teenager and was then found over his dead body with a gun in his hand, do you REALLY think that the first cops on the scene wouldn’t have found that “probable cause to suspect him of committing a crime” and arrested him until they got to the bottom of it? The “Stand Your Ground” law is a defense for trial.

    And yet, strangely enough, the Sanford police did not arrest the white guy who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager. That’s what it comes down to.

  29. “Same media circus, same race hustlers, same Black Panther thugs, same lynch mob, same useful idiots spouting the same racist lies.”

    Uh-huh.

    Hitchcock: “Is Zimmerman an innocent victim of a punk thug who was beating his head into the pavement?”
    Yorkshire: “It’s all about the Benjamins ($$$$ Franklin on the $100) in the end.”
    Hoagie : “Let me ask the libs this: If Zimmermann won the Nobel Pirze in Physics, would he still be “white” or would he suddenly become the “noted Hispanic Nobel Lauriat”?”

  30. Anna Nova, A.N., Piator says:
    March 29, 2012 at 20:38 (Edit)

    “Same media circus, same race hustlers, same Black Panther thugs, same lynch mob, same useful idiots spouting the same racist lies.”

    Uh-huh.

    Hitchcock: “Is Zimmerman an innocent victim of a punk thug who was beating his head into the pavement?”
    Yorkshire: “It’s all about the Benjamins ($$$$ Franklin on the $100) in the end.”
    Hoagie : “Let me ask the libs this: If Zimmermann won the Nobel Pirze in Physics, would he still be “white” or would he suddenly become the “noted Hispanic Nobel Lauriat”?”

    Your problem is simple. You’re 10,000 miles from here and you have no direct, on the scene dynamics of Racial Politics. You’re mostly clueless.

  31. Your problem is simple. You’re 10,000 miles from here and you have no direct, on the scene dynamics of Racial Politics. You’re mostly clueless.

    You can read about it all you want, like we can read about white-Maori relationship, but we would need several months, or years in NZ to understand the dynamics of the relationship.

  32. “Your problem is simple. You’re 10,000 miles from here and you have no direct, on the scene dynamics of Racial Politics. You’re mostly clueless.”

    Tell us again about how Obama hasn’t released his real birth certificate, Mr Yorkshire.

  33. A.N. says:
    March 29, 2012 at 21:40

    “Your problem is simple. You’re 10,000 miles from here and you have no direct, on the scene dynamics of Racial Politics. You’re mostly clueless.”

    Tell us again about how Obama hasn’t released his real birth certificate, Mr Yorkshire

    .

    In the usual fashion of the New Zealander when confronted, it’s change the subject. Or is it that this New Zealander is a Birther in disguise and wants to tell us his vast knowledge Hawaiian Birth Certificates.

  34. The lovely Miss Nova errs:

    ” – Do any of the right-wing commentators here believe, really, that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, the Sanford Police wouldn’t have arrested Zimmerman?

    If we assume that, other than the races of the individuals, everything else remained the same, and the local prosecutor told the police that there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction, what other choice would they have had but to release him?”

    But they didn’t just “release” Zimmerman, Mr Editor – they didn’t even arrest him. And if he had been a black guy shooting a white guy (and, for that matter, if his father hadn’t been a former judge), the local prosecutor might had a very different opinion.

    Odd: when I see pictures — and you’ve seen them, too — of a man being escorted by police, with his hands cuffed behind his back, I think of that as an arrest. And the dictionary does as well: To seize and hold under the authority of law. (vt); The act of detaining in legal custody: the arrest of a criminal suspect; The state of being so detained: a criminal under arrest. (vi) Being under arrest does not mean that the suspect has to be criminally charged. (Perhaps this term means something else from wherever you hail, but, being an American case, the American definitions are the ones which need to be used.)

    Might the prosecutor have had a different opinion had Mr Zimmerman’s father not been a former judge? I don’t know, and neither do you.

    If a black guy had been told not to follow an unarmed white teenager and was then found over his dead body with a gun in his hand, do you REALLY think that the first cops on the scene wouldn’t have found that “probable cause to suspect him of committing a crime” and arrested him until they got to the bottom of it? The “Stand Your Ground” law is a defense for trial.

    And yet, strangely enough, the Sanford police did not arrest the white guy who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager. That’s what it comes down to.

    Your entire argument fails, because he was arrested, and brought to police headquarters for questioning. It was after that arrest and questioning that someone — supposedly the prosecutor, but the way information has come out, that information is suspect — decided that Mr Zimmerman was not going to be criminally charged. Once the determination was taken that he would not be criminally charged, he had to be released.

    Assuming the stories are accurate, at least one police officer wanted him charged, but he was overruled by the prosecutor.

  35. Nova Wrtites:

    “If a black guy had been told not to follow an unarmed white teenager and was then found over his dead body with a gun in his hand, do you REALLY think that the first cops on the scene wouldn’t have found that “probable cause to suspect him of committing a crime” and arrested him until they got to the bottom of it? The “Stand Your Ground” law is a defense for trial”.

    Uh-huh. I would expect the police to have him looked after by the EMS (which they did), then cuff him and bring him to the station for questioning (which they did). If they felt through this questioning that a crime had been commited they could hold him up to 48 hours before arraignment. If they didn’t think a crime had been commited they would release him OR (which they did).

    “And yet, strangely enough, the Sanford police did not arrest the white guy who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager. That’s what it comes down to.”

    Uh-huh, yet strangely enough, knowing full well Zimmerman is a Hipanic, in your racist fury you still keep calling him a “white guy”. Is that willful ignorance or just a plain old propagandist lie?

  36. “We’re here! We’re Queer! And we’re in your face!” That means they were in our personal space! We had the right to beat the ever-lovin crap out of them and Wagonwheel would have to condone it, based on his condoning a black man beating the ever-lovin crap out of a white man who had invaded his space.

    Or, fast forward to 2009 and Barack Obama telling his thug mob to “get in their faces.” That means, according to Wagonwheel, we can beat the ever-lovin crap out of any Obama supporter who actually does what Obama told him to do, based specifically on what Wagonwheel actually said here.

    But wait, there’s more!

    Remember my article on CSPT entitled Bully Gets His Reward? I’m certain Wagonwheel doesn’t. Because it included a video of a bully beating on someone else, and Wagonwheel, stuck on stupid, was aghast that we right-thinking individuals cheered the bullied boy on as he showed the bully what-for.

    And the bully did far more than “get in his space”. The bully actually threw punches before getting his comeuppance. And what were Wagonwheel’s words for that situation, where a bully was physically assaulting someone else, and that someone else put a quick “beat-down then walk away” on the bully?

    What were those words? Any clue?

    Any clue at all?

    We do not know what went on before the start of the video recording, therefore it is questionable exactly who the victim was.

    I would also note that the eventual reaction by the “victim”, the body slam onto concrete, could have killed the little “perp”! Thus I would call this an overreaction.

    Instead of a body slam, how about a body squeeze? It is telling how appealing to some mindsets it is to have a resolution achieved by an act of violence!

    Yeah, a body slam (and then walk away, ending it) delivered by the harassed kid to the bully was an overreaction! But a veritable pummeling by a black guy to a white guy who “got in his space” is perfectly acceptable!

    Oh, and note, when the bully (which Wagonwheel didn’t know was the instigator, despite the article citation) is in question, Wagonwheel puts perp in scare quotes. But when Zimmerman is discussed, and we don’t even know the events, and Zimmerman has not even been charged with anything, Wagonwheel removes the scare quotes and calls him a perp and declares the shooting a murder. Not even an alleged murder, as he has demanded of us so many countless times before that it is only responsible to add the word “alleged”. Thus, again, Wagonwheel is using two completely different sets of standards. One for the unhinged Leftists like himself and one for everyone else.

    And another comment by Wagonwheel in the very same thread! And this one’s a real doozy! Hypocritical much, Wagonwheel?

    16 March 2011 at 17:26

    “He tried to talk his way out of the fight, then, when he couldn’t, he made one grab, and executed a winning move. Twist his ear? Sit on his back? Nahhh, he did it the right way.“

    Sounds like something that Dana would say. At least you’re consistent on the use of violence to solve problems. For god’s sake, Dana, he could have killed the kid. Then what would you say? And if it were your bully kid who got killed, then what? Vision and ‘common sense thought’ needed here!

    [Added] I scanned the 500 plus comments on this Hot Air piece, and found only two whose views somewhat resembled my own; the rest resembled Dana’s view. Hot Air is a rightie blog, (one of the better ones actually), so I conclude that there must be a violence gene, and Dana has it too! :)

    Don’t you dare actually fight a bully who is actually, you know, punching you and stuff! If you do, you have a “violence gene” according to Wagonwheel! But if you absolutely pummel someone who has not struck you but is merely following you and “invading your space”, then that’s perfectly fine according to Wagonwheel!

    Oh, I forgot something very important. If you’re doing the pummeling, you have to be black, and your victim has to be a white man who has followed you but hasn’t physically harmed you in any way.

    [Comment edited to add video; no changes made to text. -- Editor]

  37. Obviously, the Sanford PD did not do an adequate investigation, since we now have a Special Prosecutor assigned to the case.

    Moreover, the Sanford CoP has stepped down temporarily, as has the State’s Attorney.

    Also, we now know that Zimmerman continued to stalk Trayvon after being commanded by the 911 dispatcher not to do so. It turns out that Zimmerman ran around the end of the apartment unit and down the pavement between the back yards of adjacent apartment buildings, making it a significant distance from where his car was parked.

    And witnesses have come forward who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman punching him out and banging his head on the concrete. These witnesses also claim that it was Trayvon screaming, which then stopped short as soon as the shot was heard.

    According to the Police, Zimmerman received “first aid” in the police car on the way to the police station, not the EMS that Hoagie wrote. It is hard to believe that the injuries which Zimmerman is alleged to have received would not be visible on the surveillance video captured at the police station.

    And finally, we now have Zimmerman’s father and brother appearing on TV to make the case for George Zimmerman’s acting in self-defense.

    The additional evidence which has been produced in the last couple of days makes Zimmerman’s self-defense case weaker and weaker, in my view.

    Let us now wait to see the outcome of the April 10th Grand Jury investigation. With what we now know, there is little doubt in my mind that charges will be brought against Zimmerman and there will inevitably be a trial, unless Zimmerman confeses.

  38. “[Comment edited to add video; no changes made to text. -- Editor]“

    Right, no change to the text, but you made a change in the Hitchcock post! How is it that you think it is your prerogative to make such a change in someone else’s post, Mr Editor? The right way to handle this is for you to post your own comment with the video part of it.

    And while I am at it with complaints, why is it that you are so very tolerant of personal attacks from the right, but much less tolerant of those from the left.

    Being even-handed is not one of your strong suits, Mr Editor!

  39. WW errs:

    Obviously, the Sanford PD did not do an adequate investigation, since we now have a Special Prosecutor assigned to the case.

    No, that’s not obvious. What is obvious is that a criminal case has become a political case, and that’s why a special prosecutor was assigned.

  40. WW amuses me:

    “[Comment edited to add video; no changes made to text. -- Editor]“

    Right, no change to the text, but you made a change in the Hitchcock post! How is it that you think it is your prerogative to make such a change in someone else’s post, Mr Editor? The right way to handle this is for you to post your own comment with the video part of it.

    The video was part of Mr Hitchcock’s original CSPT post, not one I found elsewhere. I have added referenced videos by other commenters in the past, and, when I have done so, I explicitly stated what I had done. If Mr Hitchcock believes I have done wrong to him here, I’m sure that he will say so.

  41. “Or, fast forward to 2009 and Barack Obama telling his thug mob to “get in their faces.” “

    Citation please, Mr Hitchcock!

    “Don’t you dare actually fight a bully who is actually, you know, punching you and stuff! If you do, you have a “violence gene” according to Wagonwheel!”

    That is an outright falsehood, and you know it, Mr Hitchcock. I can understand fighting off a bully, but a body-slam on a concrete pavement, well that would be an unfortunate overreaction, especially if the bully were killed, which was the thrust of my comments throughout that particular thread.

    However, without a doubt, you and our Editor have a “violence gene”, since you seem to view many issues in terms of violence as a solution. For example, you certainly are war-hawks, both of you!

    “But if you absolutely pummel someone who has not struck you but is merely following you and “invading your space”, then that’s perfectly fine according to Wagonwheel!”

    Don’t put your words into my mouth, Mr Hitchcock. However, based on what we now know, it does appear that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon. Moreover, carrying a 9mm pistol probably empowered Zimmerman, and we now know the outcome of that! What would your reaction be, Mr Hitchcock, were you being closely followed by a stranger on the street. And by the way, do you carry a concealed weapon when out in the public? I’ll bet you do.

    Your entire post is a mismatch with reality, as are most of them anyway, based on your distorted views thereof. Most of them on here hardly get more than a couple of responses, if that. Have you ever asked yourself why that is?

  42. “The video was part of Mr Hitchcock’s original CSPT post, not one I found elsewhere.”

    This statement is irrelevant, Mr Editor. I told you what I consider to be an appropriate way to enhance someone’s post.

    However, it is your blog, so you do what you wish. I just don’t think adding your piece to someone else’s blog is kosher; your announcing what you did is not the issue I have raised.

    PS: I’m sure Mr Hitchcock will not object!

  43. Hoagie writes:

    “I would expect the police to have him looked after by the EMS (which they did), then cuff him and bring him to the station for questioning (which they did).”

    Perry wrote:

    “According to the Police, Zimmerman received “first aid” in the police car on the way to the police station, not the EMS that Hoagie wrote.”

    Citations please Perry. And please stop misrepresenting what other commenter’s are saying. Who administered first aid?

    ” I asked the subject in the red jacket, later identified as George Zimmerman, … if he had seen the subject. Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and that he was still armed. Zimmerman complied with all my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. … While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of the head. …

    Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. … Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police Department”

    3/27/2012 Officer Timothy Smith

    Even when incoherently objecting on the basis of a pointless point, Perry is wrong. Once again.

    Apparently Perry has determined that a hook and ladder truck was dispatched with a hose team.

    As I predicted before, it is being shown that whatever the facts turn out to be, it won’t make any difference in their expressions of outrage, to the members of the political left.

    Perry has already shown us the lay of their moral landscape.

    The principle form is this: If – and this does not necessarily apply to this, or only this case – someone to whom the progressives are sympathetic feels you have invaded their space, you should expect, after all, to experience a physical and potentially maiming or even lethal attack.

    If you defend yourself with lethal force, it’s murder.

    Yet you are somehow, the leftist imagines, mysteriously obligated to allow the leftist access to your circle of associations, just as you would allow someone who is trustworthy and capable of understanding the reciprocal nature of natural law principles of association.

    The moral dementia typical of the leftist mindset has never been on clearer display than in this instance, as it expresses itself over this confused fact situation.

    The facts seem to shift. The leftist howls of outrage remain at constant volume.

    There can ultimately be no common moral ground with people having these aggressively masochistic and ultimately nihilistic sensibilities. They clearly respect no boundaries, recognize no limits to their sway, and know no point of satiety. They apparently know only that their unlimited access to the productive and self-governing capable kind, and their use of the productive and self-governing capable kind for the progressive nihilist’s ends, is critical to their having what they want.

    They will, recent history demonstrates, push to intrude and to dominate until you either submit unconditionally and become a tool in their moral and psychological sump, or somehow manage to limit their ability to come into contact with you, or have any significant influence in your life whatsoever.

    And when you resist their attacks and hold them off at arm’s length through legal or constitutional means they will cry out that they are your victims.

    Trayvon is not the example of this principle at work, since we don’t know exactly what happened there.

    The progressives however, as they express themselves over Trayvon’s corpse, are another matter entirely.

  44. I just don’t think adding your piece to someone else’s blog is kosher

    There is a Hades of a lot of fail in the above quote!

    1) This is the Editor’s blog, not someone else’s blog.
    2) The video added was a video in an article I posted and linked to, not the Editor’s video.
    3) Wagonwheel is anti-Zionist and borderline anti-Semite, and for him to use the term “kosher” is an affront to people who actually value the Jewish faith. Wagonwheel should have used the term “halal” instead, which is nearly identical in requirements for food consumption.

    Those are just three of many fails in that sentence fragment!

    And I hereby declare the Editor has my permission to edit my comments in such a way as to introduce my previous comments to which I very clearly referred, in perpetuity and retroactively to pre-history (for the vast majority of people who believe in pre-historic times).

    And that is a declaration that carries far more weight than any of Wagonwheel’s oaths, as proven already on this site more than five times in three consecutive days.

  45. I also hereby declare the Editor has my permission to edit my comments in such a way as to provide that material to which I have explicitly linked and in such a way as to be in keeping with the underlying text as he so desires, in perpetuity and retroactively.

    I further declare all who have access to the internet, or those who will have access to the internet at some time in the future, to remind Wagonwheel of both of these declarations the next time Wagonwheel decides to attempt an outrageous change of subject away from the subject where he so obviously failed as the above attempted (and failed) aggrieved change of subject.

    I, thus, remove this hate-filled personal attack from Wagonwheel’s hate-filled personal attacks against his personal benefactor, the Editor of this site.

  46. “No, that’s not obvious. What is obvious is that a criminal case has become a political case, and that’s why a special prosecutor was assigned.”

    Then why was Trayvon’s blood tested for alcohol and drugs, yet Zimmerman’s blood not tested, Mr Editor?

    Why have both the Stanford CoP and the State’s Attorney stepped down?

    Why do we continue to learn new elements to this case a month after the alleged murder. Does this indicate an adequate investigation?

    I don’t think so!

    Answer: No, it was not an adequate investigation, obviously!

  47. And, Wagonwheel, how many people “stepped down”? And how many people merely “stepped aside”?

    And youre “obviously” has been found, at least 100 times over the past 4 years, to be totally false and erroneous, not to mention oftentimes dishonest and Dishonorable.

  48. “The moral dementia typical of the leftist mindset has never been on clearer display than in this instance, as it expresses itself over this confused fact situation.

    The facts seem to shift. The leftist howls of outrage remain at constant volume.

    There can ultimately be no common moral ground with people having these aggressively masochistic and ultimately nihilistic sensibilities. They clearly respect no boundaries, recognize no limits to their sway, and know no point of satiety.”

    Earlier on this blog, DNW made a valiant effort, to him, to play the defense attorney role, pointing out what he believed were either unknowns or descrepancies.

    When that didn’t work, and as new information continues to becoming available, DNW has now given up, and plays the attack.the.messenger game, as can be seen in the provided quote.

    Instead, DNW, you might try answering these three questions, challenging the behavior of the Sanford PD in this case:

    “Then why was Trayvon’s blood tested for alcohol and drugs, yet Zimmerman’s blood not tested, Mr Editor?

    Why have both the Stanford CoP and the State’s Attorney stepped down?

    Why do we continue to learn new elements to this case a month after the alleged murder. Does this indicate an adequate investigation?”

    Any attorney involved in this case, on either side, would want to know the answers to these questions?

    Do you have any answers, DNW, or are you going to continue with your politically motivated games?

  49. “And youre “obviously” has been found, at least 100 times over the past 4 years, to be totally false and erroneous, not to mention oftentimes dishonest and Dishonorable.”

    And speaking about not being even-handed, are you going to continue to tolerate these flagrant violations of your “Comment and Content Policy”, Mr Editor? Why have one if your are going to selectively enforce it? It’s a sham from the Right against the Left!

  50. Wagonwheel says:

    March 30, 2012 at 14:13


    Earlier on this blog, DNW made a valiant effort, to him, to play the defense attorney role, pointing out what he believed were either unknowns or descrepancies.

    When that didn’t work,…”

    Earlier on, Perry evaluated what he now characterizes as unsuccessfully playing the defense attorney this way.

    “Wagonwheel says:
    March 27, 2012 at 12:36

    DNW, you have presented an excellent review of the two scenarios and the differences. I have not seen the equivalent from the media, therefore I am hopeful that your post on here receives widespread publication, somehow. …

    “Wagonwheel says:
    March 27, 2012 at 12:53

    Also, DNW, points well taken. Again, I think you have presented a unique and well-reasoned analysis of this case.”

  51. Wagonwheel says:
    March 30, 2012 at 10:46

    “… we now know that Zimmerman continued to stalk Trayvon after being commanded by the 911 dispatcher not to do so. It turns out that Zimmerman ran around the end of the apartment unit and down the pavement between the back yards of adjacent apartment buildings, making it a significant distance from where his car was parked.”

    2nd request for a source citation. Link please.

  52. WW wrote:

    “No, that’s not obvious. What is obvious is that a criminal case has become a political case, and that’s why a special prosecutor was assigned.”

    Then why was Trayvon’s blood tested for alcohol and drugs, yet Zimmerman’s blood not tested, Mr Editor?

    I don’t know that Mr Zimmerman was not tested. However, Mr Martin’s blood would have been tested as part of any routine autopsy. That’s simply SOP.

    Why have both the Stanford CoP and the State’s Attorney stepped down?

    As noted by Mr Hitchcock, they stepped aside, not down; stepping down implies resignation. However, since this case became so politicized and their actions questioned, stepping aside would be proper; such does not imply guilt.

    Why do we continue to learn new elements to this case a month after the alleged murder. Does this indicate an adequate investigation?

    I don’t think so!

    We learn new things as time passes because we have partisans, on both sides, looking for information, and publishing it as they find it; such does not mean that these things were not known to law enforcement at or near the time of the shooting.

    Answer: No, it was not an adequate investigation, obviously!

    No, not obviously. It may seem so to someone who has only partial knowledge of the events, coming from two partisan sides, but that does not mean the investigation was inadequate. Now, it may eventually prove to have been inadequate, as the special prosecutor looks into it, but we do not know that yet, and pretending that you do know it is silly.

    It may turn out that your beliefs are correct, that Mr Zimmerman was in no way justified in shooting Mr Martin, just like it could have turned out that the accused members of the Duke lacrosse team could have raped the stripper they hired. At this point of public knowledge about the case, many, many people did think that the accused men raped Crystal Mangum. Some 88 Duke faculty members jumped on that bandwagon, and soiled themselves with a screed which assumed that Miss Mangum had been raped, and when events proved otherwise, should have been embarrassed, but probably were not.

    Conservatives are not politicizing this case; we are saying that it is possible that Mr Zimmerman committed a crime here, but we are also pointing out that we do not know, one way or the other, whether a crime was committed. And that is the absolute truth: none of us here, not John, not DNW, not Hoagie, not Anna, not York, not me, and certainly not you, know that a murder was committed. It is only you, and, to a lesser extent, Miss Nova, who are claiming that there was some sort of cover-up or exoneration based on race. It may turn out that you are right, but it could just as easily turn out that you are wrong.

    One final point. By saying that we do not know whether a crime has been committed here, because we were not part of the investigation nor have first hand knowledge of all of the known facts, we are not doing anything to prejudice any trial which might occur. You, on the other hand, by insisting that it was murder most foul, by declaring Mr Zimmerman guilty, guilty, guilty, are saying things which could prejudice potential jurors in any trial which might be held. If Mr Zimmerman is charged, he will still deserve a fair trial with an impartial jury.

    Or is it your position that a trial by media is somehow preferable?

  53. Mr Hitchcock wrote:

    Why do we continue to learn new elements to this case a month after the alleged murder.

    You’re welcome, readers.

    As I read this, my impression is that Wagonwheel did not use the adjective “alleged,” and it was added by Mr Hitchcock. If this is the case, I would not approve of that.

  54. DNW wrote:

    The facts seem to shift.

    No, the facts do not shift; it is simply that the information we receive keeps shifting, as partisans on both sides keep bringing out new information, not all of which can be trusted.

  55. SINP writes

    It’s a sham from the Right against the Left!

    Further proof you do not understand the First Amendment. And further proof of your utter cluelessness — this is is a rightist blog, after all, with absolutely no obligation to be fair to you radicals. And, if you were SOOOO concerned about “fairness” (not to mention truth), you would either change the name of your blog immediately, or get the same number of conservative contributors as radical.

    Then again, considering the number of people who actually stop by there, who’d want to join? Even Pandora has vamoosed!

  56. Here is the way this case is coming down in Sanford, FL, where there has been some racist behavior by the Sanford Police in the not too distant past:

    “Though Pamela Bondi, the special Florida prosecutor appointed to oversee the Martin case has asked the city for patience, growing evidence contradicting Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense now has some worried that the measured calm across Sanford won’t last much longer.

    The city has seen its share controversial racial incidents. In 2010 the son of a Sanford lieutenant was caught on tape beating a homeless black man but wasn’t arrested until the tape began airing on local televisions stations a month later.

    “I get a little angrier every time I read or hear something about that kid,’’ says 24-year-old Travis James, an African-American auto repairman. “ To me this city doesn’t care about black people and then I heard Zimmerman’s dad talking about how the president and all the black people are filled with hate. What was his son filled with that night? We always have to be the bigger people and keep our calm and do the right thing. I get tired of that.’’

    George Zimmerman’s father, Robert, a former judge, told a local Florida news station that President Obama, organizations like the NAACP, and many others have expressed intense hate towards his son for weeks. President Obama told reporters, “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,’’ when asked about the incident last week.”

    You can also see how Zimmerman’s father is distorting reality by turning to some hatred-based rhetoric.

  57. “2nd request for a source citation. Link please.”

    This was a report I heard last night on TV. I will try to find a link for you.

    But consider the logistics, DNW, Zimmerman’s car parked on the street side of a unit of apartments, whereas the confrontation occurred on a sidewalk down the middle of the backyards of units on either side. Zimmerman must have continued to pursue the victim.

    I’ll get back with the link.

  58. Editor says:
    March 30, 2012 at 14:56

    DNW wrote:

    The facts seem to shift.

    No, the facts do not shift; it is simply that the information we receive keeps shifting, as partisans on both sides keep bringing out new information, not all of which can be trusted.”

    Which is why I used the … word … uh … Ok you’re just making a point

  59. Wagonwheel says:
    March 30, 2012 at 15:12

    “Citation please.” That excerpt was from today’s Daily Beast.

    “Excerpt”? You were quoting?

  60. “But consider the logistics, DNW, Zimmerman’s car parked on the street side of a unit of apartments, whereas the confrontation occurred on a sidewalk down the middle of the backyards of units on either side. Zimmerman must”

    Please provide a scaled template if you wish us to seriously consider the “logistics”.

    Alternatively, you may wish to explain how you managed to seriously consider the “logistics” without either a scaled model or plan of some kind, mated to a certain timeline.

    Most people, after all, need a diagram just to make sense of the Euclidean proof of the Pythagorean theorem.

  61. “And further proof of your utter cluelessness — this is is a rightist blog, after all, with absolutely no obligation to be fair to you radicals.”

    This is indeed a “rightist blog”, koolo, run by our Editor who purports to have a “Comment and Conduct Policy” to maintain a certain standard, but which he rarely chooses to enforce with those on the Right, but much more on the Left. Mr Hitchcock is a flagrant violator of this policy, yet is not very often reprimanded by deletion. This all confirms my theory that Mr Hitchcock is our Editor’s alter ego, such that he can maintain a civil front while Mr Hitchcock is his attack dog. Thus, our Editor is promoting a two-faced sham, earning a :) regarding respect for his word and character. But ’tis all for a good cause, right Dana?

  62. “Alternatively, you may wish to explain how you managed to seriously consider the “logistics” without either a scaled model or plan of some kind, mated to a certain timeline.”

    A scaled model is exactly what was presented last evening. Now hang on while I go searching for it!

  63. SINP writes

    but which he rarely chooses to enforce with those on the Right, but much more on the Left.

    Citation please. You won’t find one, because this is all just your radical, subjective opinion.

    Thus, our Editor is promoting a two-faced sham, earning a :) regarding respect for his word and character.

    Yet another black mark for your “character,” once again demeaning the man who of his own free will and generosity provided you with your own blog. Are all radicals as disgustingly unappreciative as you, SINP?

  64. Editor says:
    March 30, 2012 at 14:45 (Edit)

    Mr Hitchcock wrote:

    Why do we continue to learn new elements to this case a month after the alleged murder.

    You’re welcome, readers.

    As I read this, my impression is that Wagonwheel did not use the adjective “alleged,” and it was added by Mr Hitchcock. If this is the case, I would not approve of that.

    Your reading would be incorrect, but your reasoning behind your reading would be dead-on bulls-eye accurate. If you look at the context (meaning my previous strident dressing down of Wagonwheel for his absolute double standards, and specifically related to the term “alleged” and his use or non-use), you will find why I accepted the thanks of the readers for Wagonwheel’s usage of the term “alleged” in this case.

    I note Wagonwheel has made multiple comments following your suggestion of possible inappropriate actions on my part but never took the time to correct you in public while you were fashioning an incorrect thought, logically achieved, in public.

    I accepted the thanks from the readership because it is my post pointing out his demand we use “alleged” when we refuse to, while he refused to use “alleged” when tied to a claimed (on his part) murder that nobody has been charged of and nobody is certain even occurred. I forced his hand earlier in the thread, causing him to have no redemption other than to use the term (without scare quotes, mind you).

    But he has let your concern go unanswered, because it best serves him to let your concern go unanswered.

    By the authority vested in me on CSPT in 2009 (was it?) and on TFSJ at nearly its start-up, I could remove any admin at any time I pleased. I could also delete the sites (during the time I held admin status on CSPT, and now on TFSJ). My public record and my private email record (which could be considered lengthy) shows I never had the intent to pull that power, but rather conveyed a grave concern that some other (well-known amongst those privileged few who were privy to the emails) may well do so.

  65. It resembled one of the “fixed that for you” type of comments, even though it was not in the same form; I inferred something which was not accurate, and I apologize to Mr Hitchcock.

  66. How about your claim, underused and misused, that you would not repeat mistakes made on CSPT, Mr Editor? Have you no resolve, have you no sense of civility? Do you think this behavior merits the respect of all. The answer is, obviously no! But you don’t care, as long as your hits keep growing, so that the ends justify the means. Now ’tis typical, unfortunately, as respect is sinking!

    This is the kind of personal attack from Mr Hitchcock that you let slide right on by:

    “And youre “obviously” has been found, at least 100 times over the past 4 years, to be totally false and erroneous, not to mention oftentimes dishonest and Dishonorable.”

  67. Wagonwheel, you have claimed “obviously raaaaacist” countless times, numbering in the high double digits, possibly even in the triple digits, when there was absolutely nothing racist about it. You have used the radical Leftist “victimology” approach in your claims. But, yet, when I show my very own heritage, you go ballistic. And you demand a reason why I should show my own heritage, with each heritage branch being among those who were murdered specifically because of their “blood type”. My reason is because you excuse a criminal element because of their “blood type” and you claim a whole group of society can blame their heritage but I cannot even remark about my own heritage (which was of being hunted down and murdered for “what” they were).

    You, Wagonwheel, are among the most disgusting low-life Americans I have ever encountered, with your heinous and malignant and ignorant double standards. You make Quisling look like a saint with some of your contradictory pronouncements. At least PIATOR has an excuse: he hates the US, and has admitted as much on multiple occasions, even while people from the US and contributors to CSPT were seriously concerned about his well-being after the major earthquake that killed many of his countrymen. You, Wagonwheel, do not have such an excuse.

  68. And I will note that Wagonwheel has not even yet declared that I had not altered his comment where the Editor thought I may have but quickly agreed I didn’t, and apologized for his improper insinuation. Wagonwheel, with his well-known lack of forthrightness, has chosen to let that seed germinate on this site.

    If Wagonwheel had any honor at all…

    Any honor at all…

    He would declare straight-up that I did not alter his comment in any way, shape, or form. And he would have done so as soon as the question arose! Instead of waiting for someone to challenge his honor to do so!

    Because Wagonwheel has been proven beyond question to be highly Dishonorable, just by his actions this past week! And it cannot be truthfully denied!

  69. Wagonwheel says:
    March 30, 2012 at 15:39

    Here is the excerpt from the Daily Beast which I quoted.”

    It didn’t link to anything buttressing your contention.

    Wagonwheel says:
    March 30, 2012 at 16:24

    Very good, koolo; that’s the schematic which I saw on TV last evening.

    If that’s the schematic you saw and approve, then what it seemingly illustrates, is the following: That after having previously passed by the intersecting end of the access sidewalk dividing the Condo rows lawns, and near to where the shooting eventually was to take place, but without ever having spotted Trayvon, Zimmerman was on his way back toward his vehicle when he encountered Trayvon.

    Zimmerman’s recorded 911 remarks as to the direction he thought Trayvon had run, do comport with the satellite image schematic showing Zimmerman’s second-to-last-position as being at the “outside” edge of the community.

    Because of an elbow at the beginning of the outward leading “Twin Trees street extension walkway”, Zimmerman, if still in his car on the street, or following some seconds behind, would not necessarily have observed Trayvon turning right, off of the Twin Trees street extension walkway, and running or walking at a right angle down the lawn access sidewalk; as that intersecting point of the walkway and the lawn sidewalk might have been screened by the condo buildings themselves.

    Zimmerman appears according to the schematic to have bypassed that sidewalk and continued on, outbound along what I am calling the Twin Trees street corner extension walkway.

    In order to return to his vehicle then, Zimmerman had of necessity, and while walking back in-bound toward his truck, to again pass by the lawn access sidewalk he had previously passed by while outbound. Outbound that is, without ostensibly having seen Trayvon.

    The sidewalk providing access to what appears to be the back lawns of the rows of condominiums was on Zimmerman’s right when he was outbound along the Twin Trees street corner extension walkway leading out toward Retreat View Circle. And the same lawn access sidewalk was on his left, as he was returning from Retreat View Circle toward his truck, which had been left parked some 300 feet back on Twin Trees street from what was – if the tags are accurate – Zimmerman’s penultimate stop.

    Yet, Perry, your scenario has Trayvon reappearing to be seen only upon Zimmerman’s return, and only some 50-70 feet down the same perpendicularly intersecting sidewalk between the Condominiums which Zimmerman had earlier bypassed without ever noticing him. It is there, 50-70 feet away, in the open, and where he should have been previously spotted, that Trayvon is supposedly run down, “cornered”, and murdered according to the outraged interpretation of so many.

    It appears from the satellite photograph, that Zimmerman’s next to last stop at Retreat View Circle and the end of the Twin Trees road extension walkway, was in fact, some 100 feet or so beyond this perpendicularly intersecting lawn access sidewalk.

    So Zimmerman, if the leftist scenario is correct, when outbound along the Twin Trees road extension walkway, had to pass by this lawn access sidewalk which led directly to Trayvon’s father’s girlfriend’s condominium (or however these places are classified). Zimmerman then proceeded another 100 or so feet beyond it, and out to Retreat View Circle. Where, according to the scenario being recommended through the schematic, Zimmerman paused, and then headed back either approx 100 feet directly along the Twin Trees street extension walkway he had earlier set out on, or by some more meandering path, toward his vehicle.

    In any event, this means that if the “cornering” of Trayvon scenario is to be believed, one is required to also believe that Trayvon was unable to get to his father’s girlfriend’s condo down at the far end of the lawn access sidewalk in the time it took Zimmerman to bypass that lawn access sidewalk, proceed outward another 100 feet alongside a view-blocking building toward Retreat View Circle street, stop, turn back toward his vehicle, and travel the 100 feet back along the Twin Trees extension walkway toward the intersection with the lawn access sidewalk. A sidewalk which he had by-passed before without apparently having seen Trayvon.

    Trayvon’s understandably upset father wonders how things might have turned out if only Trayvon had been able to make it the 70 yards further down the sidewalk from the place he died, to the safety of his girlfriend’s condo. That is seventy yards, or 200 some feet away.

    Two hundred feet is approximately how many feet Zimmerman cluelessly – according to the schematic you recommend – traveled after bypassing the nearly intersecting spot where Trayvon eventually was killed, all without ever having noticed Trayvon.

    Perry, the obvious question, given the schematic that you recommended to us, is: How could Trayvon, not have made it “home”? How could he have been cornered?

  70. DNW, you need to rethink your scenario, focusing on the location of Zimmerman when he made his call to the 911 dispatcher, then refusing the order of the dispatcher, instead continued to follow Trayvon. He then proceeded to follow after Trayvon, who was on his way to his destination, away from where he (Zimmerman) had just decided to disobey the order. As Zimmerman pursued, Trayvon must have stopped, after which the two individuals came in contact and the altercation ensued, according to a witness, who saw Trayvon on top pummeling Zimmerman. Then, Trayvon screamed, a scream cut short by a killing shot from the 9mm pistol possessed by Zimmerman.

    Although Trayvon was prevailing in the altercation when he was shot dead, the self-defense claim is difficult to accept because Zimmerman should not have been there in the first place, as per the order by the 911 dispatcher.

    Hardly can an aggressor turn around and plead self-defense when losing the fight which he precipitated by stalking the victim!

  71. “Your entire argument fails, because he was arrested, and brought to police headquarters for questioning”

    Uh-huh. So the Sanford Police Department is releasing letters giving their reasons for not arresting Zimmerman and yet you are claiming he was arrested?

    And you’re doing this on teh basis that he was at the police station?

    Let’s see…

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_being_detained_by_a_police_officer

    —-
    When a police officer wishes to question you, his actions fall under one of three areas: Contact, Detention, or Arrest.

    A Detention is a non-consensual temporary denial of liberty. A police officer must have “reasonable suspicion” that

    1. you are about to commit a crime
    2. you are in the act of committing a crime, or
    3. you have committed a crime

    in order to Detain you. The officer has the authority to temporarily deny you the ability to leave while he investigates his suspicion. You may still refuse to answer any questions, but you have no right to leave. The officer must use a reasonable amount of time to investigate his suspicions until the detention elevates to the level of “probable cause” to arrest you. If the officer fails to determine there is probable cause for an Arrest, he must release you in a reasonable amount of time. The courts have determined that what is a reasonable amount of time is relative to the criminal activity being investigated. If you attempt to leave a detention without the permission of the police officer, you may be subject to Arrest. During a Detention, absent certain circumstances, a police officer may not move you to another location or the Detention becomes a de facto Arrest.
    —-

    So you don’t seem to know that the basic idea that there’s such a thing as a “police detention” which comes before arrest, and yet you’re still blathering on as if you’re an expert?

  72. “So you don’t seem to know that the basic idea that there’s such a thing as a “police detention” which comes before arrest, and yet you’re still blathering on as if you’re an expert?”

    More trollish silliness from the New Zealand “Walking with Ghosts” blogger Phoenician in a time of Romans … presently masquerading here as a female.

    The Walking With Ghosts blogger quotes wiki:

    “in order to Detain you. The officer has the authority to temporarily deny you the ability to leave while he investigates his suspicion. You may still refuse to answer any questions, but you have no right to leave. The officer must use a reasonable amount of time to investigate his suspicions until the detention elevates to the level of “probable cause” to arrest you. If the officer fails to determine there is probable cause for an Arrest, he must release you in a reasonable amount of time. The courts have determined that what is a reasonable amount of time is relative to the criminal activity being investigated. If you attempt to leave a detention without the permission of the police officer, you may be subject to Arrest. During a Detention, absent certain circumstances, a police officer may not move you to another location or the Detention becomes a de facto Arrest.”

    Zimmerman was handcuffed at the scene, not merely detained there. He was later removed from the immediate scene and was placed in the squad car handcuffed. He was then transported from the general area to the police station, while in handcuffs.

    Lectlaw:

    “An arrest does not necessarily and automatically result only from the use of physical restraints (e.g., handcuffs), U.S. v. Hastamorir, supra, at 1557; U.S. v. Kapperman, 764 F.2d 786, 790 n. 4 (11th Cir.’85), or only from the officers’ show of force (e.g. drawing their weapons), U.S. v. Roper, 702 F.2d 984, 988 (11th Cir.’83), it cannot be seriously doubted that these factors, when used in conjunction, would ordinarily lead a reasonable person to believe that he is under arrest, cf. 2 LaFave, supra, Section(s) 5.1(a) at 390-91; 3 id. 9.2(d) at 366-67, especially when such a seizure follows directly on the heels of an official directive, or even a ‘request,’ to leave the sanctuary of one’s home.

    Under one view, an arrest under the Fourth Amendment, would only occur when the police recite the magic words, ‘You are now under arrest,’ or perhaps after the passage of a considerable period of time. Such a result is plainly inconsistent with the precedent of the Supreme Court, Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212-13 (’79) (whether a suspect was told that he was ‘under arrest’ is irrelevant to determining whether he was, in fact, under arrest).

    When it is clear that the officers have resorted to such restrictive seizures of individuals (handcuffing them at gunpoint) in order to investigate their suspicions of prior criminal activity, the detention of the suspects is sufficiently serious to constitute an arrest requiring probable cause, even if the officers did not formally advise the suspects that they were ‘under arrest’ (or even if the officers did not intend to effect a ‘formal’ arrest). U.S. v. Diaz-Lizaraza, supra, at 1221-22; see also U.S. v. Vargas, supra, at 298. “

    What do the police say they actually did?

    “Ofc. T. Smith stated via radio that he was arriving in the area. Ofc. T. Smith later states that there was one subject shot and he had one at gunpoint. Upon arrival officer T. Smith had a white male, later identified as George Zimmerman, in custody.”

    Officer Ricardo Ayala.

    “Zimmerman complied with all my verbal commands and was placed in handcuffs. … Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and given first aid by the SFD.”

    Officer T. Smith.

    Zimmerman was not merely detained at the scene temporarily.

    Zimmerman was held at gunpoint and complied with the police officers “commands”. Zimmerman was disarmed, and handcuffed. Zimmerman was placed while handcuffed in the rear seat of the police vehicle. Zimmerman was transported while handcuffed in the rear of the police vehicle from the scene to another location, i.e., to the police station.

    Zimmerman was removed from the back seat of the police car at the police station garage with his hands still in cuffs and behind his back. Zimmerman remained in the garage with his hands cuffed behind his back while being searched again. He was then led by three officers down numerous hallways and into the “interview room” with his hands cuffed behind his back.

    Did Zimmerman “agree” to “voluntarily” accompany the police while in handcuffs? We will probably find out sooner or later.

  73. Wagonwheel says:
    March 30, 2012 at 21:30

    DNW, you need to rethink your scenario, focusing on the location of Zimmerman when he made his call to the 911 dispatcher, then refusing the order of the dispatcher, instead continued to follow Trayvon. “

    Perry, you need to provide some data in your arguments if you intend to be taken as engaging in anything more than your usual ideologically motivated “push-back” routine.

    I took the schematic you endorsed, and I laid out the approximate areas traversed. I earlier cited the 911 call, and laid out a reasonable surmise as to what was transpiring on a tape which anyone could listen to if they were sincere enough and interested enough in the truth to trouble themselves to do so.

    I also quoted Trayvon’s girlfriend, in what was said to be the context.

    You have done nothing like any of that.

    Instead of reasoning and laying out your arguments with anything approaching data, you have flitted from blog site to blog site in search of rhetoric to deposit here as part of your push-back operation.

    Koolo has provided links to the schematic. I provided links to the 911 call. Others have provided links to the arrest video, or to the police reports.

    You won’t even quote, much less honestly cite consistently.

    As I predicted earlier, if it turns out that Zimmerman never did catch up with Trayvon on his own, and that Zimmerman was confronted on his return path to his truck by a backtracking Trayvon looking to do to Zimmerman that which Trayvon’s cousin said he did to a bus driver, if that is the case, then you will still insist that an act of self-defense involving lethal force was unjustified, even at the price of experiencing maiming or death.

    Yet nothing you assert as to the circumstances proximate to the killing, is based on any schematic evidence, distances traversed, solid, or even evidential timelines, or known facts.

    You assert that Zimmerman decided to “disobey” an “order”. There was no “order” issued to Zimmerman, and Zimmerman as a civilian and property owning resident of the complex is not under orders. There is instead contrary evidence to your claim, recorded evidence to demonstrate that Zimmerman acknowledged and then complied with the dispatcher’s comment that “we don’t need you to do that”, at the approximate time the statement was made.

    In fact you completely ignore the only real evidence that was early on available: the tape.

    At 48 seconds, while Zimmerman is in his truck and talking to the dispatcher, he notes that Trayvon is “staring at me”. Then during the next minute Zimmerman says, “he’s coming towards me”; and later, “he’s coming to check me out” ….

    The tape, if a true relation of events, if not motivations, indicates that Trayvon began running only at about or before 2:09 of the call, at a time before Zimmerman left his vehicle. Trayvon was not running because Zimmerman had already undertaken a pursuit of him.

    The tape reveals that Zimmerman only left his vehicle at about 2 min. 11 sec.s, some seconds after Trayvon had already begun running toward, what Zimmerman described to the dispatcher as, the back entrance to the neighborhood.

    At about 2 minutes 40 seconds, after having acknowledged that he was following the route he thought Trayvon took, and after the hearing the dispatcher’s comment at 2:26/27 that “we don’t need you to do that”, Zimmerman’s says “ok” at 2:29, his voice calms, and he begins answering questions as to where his truck is parked, and how he will meet the squad car.

    At 3 minutes and 33 seconds Zimmerman is asked by the dispatcher about his apartment address, and gives out the street number of his “home” as “1950″ … and then immediately stops and comments, “Ah crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is … ”

    So Perry, how was Zimmerman following Trayvon, if he didn’t know where Trayvon was?

    In fact, Zimmerman, as the recording indicates, appears to have mistakenly thought that Trayvon headed out to the “back exit”.

    If this recording of his statements to the dispatcher reflects his true beliefs, then it does seem reasonable to conclude that Zimmerman was in fact heading back toward his truck from the back entrance where he thought Trayvon had gone, when he ran across and was challenged (according to Trayvon’s own girlfriend’s recollection) to explain “what are you following me for”.

    Trayvon was not obviously talking on the phone as he began staring at Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his truck, nor for the next 80 some seconds as he approached Zimmerman in the truck and apparently passed by him. Trayvon must have talked to his girlfriend either before or after, or possibly both before, after, and during, if he had the phone on while having it hidden. If that is, ABC news is correct as to the length of the phone call and its timing.

    Are you still implying that Zimmerman caught Trayvon during an all out pursuit?

    Do you trust the evidence of Trayvon’s girlfriend, who indicates that Trayvon initiated the verbal exchange?

    Are you asserting that you know there was an actual “fight”, rather than merely an assault initiated by Trayvon, and a subsequent beating of Zimmerman?

    Or, as seems likely are you now simply saying that Trayvon had reason to be indignant; and that even if Trayvon did round back on Zimmerman, hail him, sucker punch him and beat him, that what Zimmerman received under that scenario is what Zimmerman morally deserved, and what we should have naturally expected him to receive.

    As I said before, it is possible that Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation with Trayvon, was beaten down, and then shot Trayvon in retaliation. But there is little evidence to indicate that scenario in the public domain, and some significant evidence to indicate otherwise.

    Perry’s speculations adducing no evidence are reproduced for the record, along with his moral evaluations and sensibilities which remain on stupefying display:

    He then proceeded to follow after Trayvon, who was on his way to his destination, away from where he (Zimmerman) had just decided to disobey the order. As Zimmerman pursued, Trayvon must have stopped, after which the two individuals came in contact and the altercation ensued, according to a witness, who saw Trayvon on top pummeling Zimmerman. Then, Trayvon screamed, a scream cut short by a killing shot from the 9mm pistol possessed by Zimmerman.

    Although Trayvon was prevailing in the altercation when he was shot dead, the self-defense claim is difficult to accept because Zimmerman should not have been there in the first place, as per the order by the 911 dispatcher.

    Hardly can an aggressor turn around and plead self-defense when losing the fight which he precipitated by stalking the victim!

  74. As I have said before, the evidence gets made publicly in dribs and drabs, and people are taking snap judgements without the full information. Wagonwheel noted, after the ABC video came out:

    And witnesses have come forward who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman punching him out and banging his head on the concrete. These witnesses also claim that it was Trayvon screaming, which then stopped short as soon as the shot was heard.

    According to the Police, Zimmerman received “first aid” in the police car on the way to the police station, not the EMS that Hoagie wrote. It is hard to believe that the injuries which Zimmerman is alleged to have received would not be visible on the surveillance video captured at the police station.

    Anna Nova had mentioned the same thing as well.

    But that meme has started to fall apart.

    Surveillance video of George Zimmerman arriving at a Sanford, Fla. police station indicates what may be an injury to the back of his head, a Daily Caller analysis shows.

    ABC News published the video Wednesday evening. Zimmerman is the man who shot and killed 17-year-old black teen Trayvon Martin a month ago. (RELATED: Full coverage of the Martin shooting)

    “A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman,” ABC News reporter Matt Gutman wrote, noting that Zimmerman told police “he shot Martin after he was punched in the nose, knocked down and had his head slammed into the ground.”

    ABC News reported that Zimmerman appears uninjured in the video. But a still image from the video indicates what appears to be a vertical laceration or scar several inches long.

    ABC did note that at the 49-second mark in the video, one of the police officers accompanying Zimmerman stops to look at the back of Zimmerman’s head for several seconds. Zimmerman, as ABC News noted, did not visit the emergency room after police interviewed him.

    And though the great Andrew Breitbart has gone to his eternal reward — which I do not doubt for a moment will be heaven — his compatriots are carrying on his work:


    New High Def Police Video Of Zimmerman Appears Damning Of ABC Report

    ABC News boldly proclaimed police surveillance video of George Zimmerman being taken into the Sanford police station the night Trayvon Martin was killed showed no blood or bruises from an alleged physical encounter Zimmerman claimed to have had with 17 year-old Trayvon Martin.

    Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman

    A new High Definition clip from the same video appears to make clear that Zimmerman had a gash, or wound of some kind on the back of his head. That would be totally consistent with his version of events on the night in question and opposite the impression ABC News gave its viewers.

    Big Journalism called the ABC video-based report reckless and revealing of nothing after it first aired. ABC’s presumed ability to enhance and review video before airing only makes their report all the more outrageous. Given analysis by Breitbart Media and the Daily Caller. already performed, the ABC video appeared to be inconclusive, at best.

    The new High Defintion clip from the police video Breitbart TV is releasing, see below, makes any determination beyond the video being inconclusive is shoddy, if not intentionally unethical, Journalism – if not deceptive and misleading Journalism. To date, ABC has offered no official response to the broad and convincing criticism of the disingenuous nature of their aired report.

  75. “Surveillance video of George Zimmerman arriving at a Sanford, Fla. police station indicates what may be an injury to the back of his head, a Daily Caller analysis shows.”

    Uh-huh. The video shows no injuries, but one grainy still from the video “enhanced” by a wingnut site is proof?

    Where are full color pictures from Zimmerman’s defence lawyer showing the injuries? Where’s the comments from the EMTs who treated him?

    Where’s the blood on the clothes from the supposedly broken nose?

    Oh, and Mr Editor, you don’t seem to have explained why, if Zimmerman was arrested, the Police Department is giving their reasons for not arresting him. Why is that?

    AND THERE’S A NEW REPORT FROM A WITNESS RELEASED

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/trayvon-martin-witness-breaks-silence/?hpt=ac_t1

  76. Here’s something new from Henry Pierson Curtis, Orlando Sentinel, March 30, 2012

    Texas lawyers offer $10,000 for George Zimmerman’s legal defense

    The National Association for Legal Gun Defense wants to contribute $10,000 toward George Zimmerman’s legal expenses, a member said today.

    The group represents gun owners involved in self-defense shooting cases, said attorney Blue Rannefeld of Fort Worth, Texas.

    Rannefeld said he has not been able to contact Zimmerman, 28, and is trying to reach Zimmerman’s attorney, Craig Sonner of Altamonte Springs to make the group’s offer of assistance.

  77. Here’s the video you referenced.

    Well, Miss Nova, you have yet another supposed witness come forward, but he’s hiding his identity. And even with that, he says he saw two men scuffling on the ground, one on top of the other. That would seem to indicate that the physical fight between Mr Martin and Mr Zimmerman, which Mr Zimmerman said occurred, prior to the gunshot. The alleged witness could not tell from his position which man was on top, but if Mr Zimmerman had simply shot Mr Martin, he would not normally have laid down on top of him afterward. He was unable to say whether there was a lot of struggling when he heard the shot.

    I do find it somewhat interesting that the witness said that it was dark and he couldn’t see things clearly, but he said, more than once, that he saw “an Hispanic man.” Supposedly Mr Zimmerman doesn’t look all that Hispanic, and from the vantage point of the witness, it seems odd to me that he was so certain of this.

    I know that this sounds like a radical idea, but, since there has been a special prosecutor appointed to investigate this case, perhaps we ought to cease taking judgements on partial evidence, and let the people actually on site, with the proper training, actually investigate the events without taking all sorts of assumptions, most of them based on race, as to what happened.

  78. Editor, did you happen to see the article about ABC’s strategic placement of a superfluous chyron on the lower third of the initial Zimmerman arriving at police HQ tape to cover up evidence of injury to the back of Zimmerman’s head?

    I recall seeing both the doctored tape and the article denouncing ABC’s corruption, but I can’t find the article now.

  79. No, rope, I didn’t. But there has been so much coming out, from biased sources on both sides, that I find it impossible to know what really happened, who is right and who is wrong. The professional investigators there ought to do their jobs, quietly and professionally, and take a reasoned decision as to whether Mr Zimmerman should be charged with a crime. But none of us here, looking at the case from long distance, knows the truth.

  80. I just went back to this thread to archive a couple of the inflammatory and categorically presented statements made by one commenter here, which now look as though they will prove to be categorically false, when I noticed this following comment made by the Editor.

    “Editor says:
    March 26, 2012 at 12:17

    If there turns out to have been a videotape of the entire incident, and it unquestionably shows Mr Martin assaulting Mr Zimmerman in just the manner described, it won’t make one bit of difference to those who have already made this a cause celebré.

    Although I said something to the same effect repeatedly, at length, posing it as a prediction, it seems the Editor clearly framed and stated the idea first, and over 3 hours before I made any kind of remark at all on the thread.

    As the facts continue to trickle in, will be interesting to see how the core notion holds up.

  81. Pingback: Oh, that unbiased professional media! « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Comments are closed.