Both during the trial and after the verdict was delivered, the reaction of those hoping for a guilty verdict was universal: The facts of the case were ignored.
The only relevant detail being considered seems to be that a grown man shot and killed an unarmed teenager. None of the witness testimony matters, which all supported Zimmerman’s version of events — even the prosecution’s witnesses. None of the physical evidence matters, which all supported Zimmerman’s version of events — even the prosecution’s evidence submissions.
If you were hoping for a guilty verdict, why is only relevant detail the fact that Martin was killed by Zimmerman?
Sifting Reality 
The whole case was about racism – racism of blacks who claim that if Trayvon hadn’t been black he wouldn’t have been shot, and racism of blacks who always assume a non-black is guilty of murder if they shoot a black.
The only relevant detail was that Martin was Black, and Zimmerman was close enough to white to hate.
And in reality a Hispanic man was acquitted of killing a black teenager.
A mere fact.
On the face of it, it sounds fishy as hell. A fella with a gun is stalking a young black kid who was apparently doing nothing but being on his way home from the store. Zimmerman reports a “suspicious kid” and is instructed by the police not to get out of his SUV or approach the person. Zimmerman disregards the instructions. Soon thereafter, Zimmerman kills this unarmed kid, supposedly for assaulting him.
The questions abound: WHY did Zimmerman disregard police instructions? WHAT was Martin doing that was so suspicious? WHY would a kid with no significant record of troubles attack Zimmerman for no reason?
It sounds fishy as hell. The part that is missing is “…and then he attacked me…” but WHY? What provoked an innocent kid to suddenly attack a guy for no known reason?
Add to this the whole race history of our country – black young men have been murdered, assaulted and otherwise persecuted for the “crime” of being black young men in our nation for over 100 years – and I hope you can understand why black mothers and fathers and their friends are holding their young men a bit more closely this morning.
It has nothing to do with “black racism” as Glenn falsely charges, that is absurd.
~Dan
You have all your facts wrong. Not surprised though.
Zimmerman reported a suspicious person because there had been a rash of home burglaries in the past few months.
Zimmerman was not instructed by police to not get out of his vehicle. In fact he only exited his vehicle when the emergency dispacher asked his location. He then saw Martin and began to follow him so the police would be able to address him. The dispacher, who is a civilian, not a police officer, asked if he was following. Zimmerman said yes and the dispacher said “we dont need you to do that” He was never told not to, and in fact Zimmerman said OK and began to walk back to his vehicle. Thats when he was confronted by Martin according to the State’s witness R. Jeantel when she said she heard Martin say “why you following me for?”
Zimmerman never disregarded police instruction. He never stalked Martin.
Glenn’s reference is to R. Jeantel’s testimony that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “Creepy-ass cracker” and that it is normal for people in her community to refer to white people as “crackers”.
I’d suggest the Trabues of the world get some real facts about the case, including two specific thing:
Zimmerman did not profile Trayvon because of his race, because he couldn’t see his race. Also, Trayvon was not an innocent little boy.
http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2013/jul/15/zimmerman-verdict/
It’s possible, but I’m just relying upon what I’ve heard from CNN and other news sources…
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts
What specifically is mistaken? I did use “stalking” instead of “following,” that’s a bit of editorialism by me. But from a kid’s perspective, if you have this fella following you, I’m quite sure it might feel like stalking.
What specifically is mistaken?
From CNN:
Zimmerman’s voice, meanwhile, comes through on a 911 call he made around that time, telling a dispatcher about “a real suspicious guy.”
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining, and he’s just walking around.”
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman, who’d called 911 at least four times previously for other incidents, if he was following the person. He replies, “Yes.”
“OK. We don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher responded.
But Zimmerman followed him anyway.
Guilty of being “really suspicious looking” and “walking around…” yeah, that’s a capital crime.
~Dan
Thats great that you have a CNN article, but the actual fact is that he didnt get out of the vehicle until asked his location. Yes, he reported a suspicious person. There was someone who was just walking around in the rain not headed in any particular direction. Thats suspicious in a neighborhood where theres been breakins. And Martin wasn’t a kid, he was a muscular tall 17 year-old with a penchant for fighting as evidenced by video of him participating in a “fight club” type group. Add that to the pictures of himself posing with guns and drugs, and getting suspended from school for drugs, vandalism, and having stolen property in his locker, and youve got a thug, not a kid.
Dan
you should check up on my post where I have collected the facts from the incident. https://siftingreality.com/2012/04/07/some-facts-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/
I answered you already
Is it the case or is it not the case that…
1. Mr Martin had not done anything other than “look very suspicious” and “walk around” before this happened? Fact or not?
2. That Mr Martin had committed no crimes, given no indication of committing any crimes? Fact or not?
3. That Mr Zimmerman reported the “very suspicious” young man who had done nothing and the police specifically told Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin? Fact or not?
4. That Mr Martin has ZERO records of assault? Zero history of unprovoked attacks on random strangers? Fact or not?
5. That we don’t know – CAN’T know – what happened that led to an alleged attack, and that we can’t know that because there were two witnesses of the alleged attack, and one is dead and the other killed him? Fact or not?
6. That IF Mr Zimmerman had done what the police specifically told him to do and not followed Mr Martin, there is no evidence that any attack would have taken place? and thus no murder/killing? Fact or not?
In fact, these ARE the facts as I’ve heard them and these FACTS make it seem that this was a bad decision.
Now, let me be clear: I am not in the habit of second guessing juries or judging a trial via television. I trust our system and am not besmirching this jury (but really? No black folk, no men on this jury? What were the lawyers thinking? Where is a jury that looks like the community?). I’m not saying the jury was wrong. Perhaps the case was poorly prosecuted (although I don’t know that, either – again, I don’t follow trials by TV, I don’t think that’s how our system should work).
But this just seems rotten for many reasons and I hope the case is reviewed by someone. Because the FACTS don’t add up, to many of us. Many of us are well aware that being a young black male too often gets one in trouble just for who they are, in the real world. Based on evidence.
And, to be clear again, I’m not saying Zimmerman is racist or that he was following Martin because he was black. But just having that “look” of a young urban male leads WAY too many people to be suspicious, regardless of race and finding a young man to be “very suspicious” when he had – by ALL accounts – done nothing more vicious or harmful than picking up some skittles at the grocery store, that is suspicious in itself, when it leads to the killing of an unarmed young man.
~Dan
Martin did look suspicious walking around in the rain looking all around. Thats why Zimmerman called the police.
martin didnt commit any crimes, and no one said he did. However, looking all around while walking aimlessly in the night in a neighborhood that has has a rash of break ins over the last couple months is a reason to take a closer look.
False. The police did not tell Zimmerman to not follow Martin. A civilian 911 operator said they didnt need Zimmerman to follow him. Big difference. 911 operators have no authority, and the suggestion to not follow was for Zimmerman’s safety, not the suspects.
False. Martin was involved in a fight club and the police are on record stating they intentionally didnt arrest Martin for crimes when they should have because they wanted to keep the crime numbers down at his school.
We can know what happened because Zimmerman’s account is reasonable, plausible, and not contradicted by other witnesses who saw the event nor any other physical evidence.
False, the police never instructed Zimmerman to do or not do anything.
Both sides pick jurors. Also what difference does it make what the demographics are? Are women too naive to judge the evidence? What property of black skin makes one understand evidence better than white skin? Youre a racist for suggesting such things.
The actual facts do add up. Your contrived false perceptions of what the facts are don’t add up. But thats not because of the facts, its because of your not understanding or knowing what the facts actually are.
Zimmerman was a registered democrat who voted for Obama. He led a crusade against the sanford PD for their harassing and roughing up a black man. Zimmerman is not a racist in any degree.
It appears that the Reverend Jackson is upset because Travon didn’t get a jury of his peers.
The problem with the whole case is that the Sanford prosecutor was right in the first place. There wasn’t enough evidence to rationally hope for a conviction for 2nd degree murder. The charges were driven by elements outside of the justice system, which sets a horrible precedent. Now those same folks would like to see the concept of double jeopardy set aside so they can “get” Zimmermen. Of course, those are also the same folks on various social and other media laughing about how Zimmerman won’t last a year before some African American kills him.
I think the thing that disturbs me the most is how many (especially in the media; Piers Morgan and Nancy Grace being the most egregious) people were more concerned about Zimmerman getting found guilty, than they were about allowing the justice system to work as it was designed.
“But this just seems rotten for many reasons and I hope the case is reviewed by someone.”
What we need is a group of lawyers doing their best to present the case that Zimmerman was guilty of a crime, and they should present that case to a jury and allow the rest of the nation to keep up with their presentation through television.
Until we have that, Dan has good reason to proclaim just how rotten this whole thing seems and to demand some sort of systematic review of the evidence.
Touche. Honestly, good quip. I laughed.
However, I’d note that, a nation of people DID watch the process and it strikes a good many of us as very questionable.
A question for you all: Did you all complain about the OJ trial results?
~Dan Trabue
Yes, the evidence pointed toward guilt. Also the casey anthony case. She should have been convicted too. Its not a race thing. Youre almost as bad as al and jesse with your race hustling.
RE: OJ.
Disagree, yes.
Complain, some.
Threaten, never.
Riot, no.
Suggest fundamental changes to the legal system, no.
Suggest that OJ would be deserve to be killed by vigilantes, no.
Big difference, yes.
What difference?
We both disagree and complain some about the respective cases.
Neither of us riot or threaten in either case.
Neither of us are suggesting fundamental changes or vigilantism.
I see no difference.
If you think it’s okay to complain about the OJ case, then I don’t suppose you have a problem with many of us complaining about this case. No difference.
~Dan Trabue
Difference in the evidence and testimony presented. Im guessing you followed neither
The difference was that the evidence against OJ was overwhelming and the jury nullified it because of race. With Zimmerman the evidence for him was overwhelming and the jury acted according to the law.
I think a better comparison would be the other nonblack man who shot at a car full of young black men over a confrontation that started about the volume of their music. He is pleading self defense and stand yout ground.
The point is that people disagree about trials sometimes. When they disagree, they might complain on the internets. Just because you disagree with their opinion is not evidence that they should be quiet while you complain and whine.
That would be hypocritical and irrational.
My side isnt whining…or rioting…or vanfalizing…or assaulting innocent people.
Oh, I’ve heard a LOT of whining about the OJ case. I STILL hear about it fairly regularly and how long has that been?
~Dan
OJ got off because a glove didnt fit and a cop lied about using the word ‘nigger’. All other evidence said guilty. Blood on his shoes, in his car and at his house, running from police, cuts on his own hands, bruises on his arms, his blood at the scene. He did it.
The problem with comparisons to OJ is that even the people who supported OJ pretty much agree he did it. The big issues with OJ was that money buys good lawyers, and that the vast majority of African Americans were willing to give him a pass no matter what actually happened.
Also, those of us who disagreed with the verdict didn’t come out and suggest significant changes to the legal system to “fix” jury verdicts. None of us suggested that it was inevitable that OJ would be lynched by vigilantes. None of us rioted. None of us organized protests. None of us attempted to extrapolate one specific situation into a statement about race in the US.