Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

The allegations are irrelevant to the shooting. They're unproven. They involve an alleged crime that is considered one of the most distasteful in our culture. I don't know why the prosecution would release them unless it wanted to prejudice the jury pool, and whether I like Zimmerman or not, I want state prosecutors to be fair and honorable in their jobs.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Character does matter, to a degree.

When it pertains to the crime at hand, then the degree is measurable. So proving Zimmerman's racial bias is important, proving his tendency towards violence is important and proving his history of poor judgment is important. Saying he might have molested a kid does nothing other than make him look like dirt, and has no bearing on him shooting someone who "looked like a thug".

Atras wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Character does matter, to a degree.

When it pertains to the crime at hand, then the degree is measurable. So proving Zimmerman's racial bias is important, proving his tendency towards violence is important and proving his history of poor judgment is important. Saying he might have molested a kid does nothing other than make him look like dirt, and has no bearing on him shooting someone who "looked like a thug".

Is molesting a kid not poor judgement? What about lack of empathy? Lack of concern over consequences? These things absolutely factor into this case, especially if you're trying to convince someone to convict murder as opposed to manslaughter.

Funkenpants is right though, they're just allegations so without proof they probably shouldn't be allowed to influence the case. Unfortunately they will.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Atras wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Character does matter, to a degree.

When it pertains to the crime at hand, then the degree is measurable. So proving Zimmerman's racial bias is important, proving his tendency towards violence is important and proving his history of poor judgment is important. Saying he might have molested a kid does nothing other than make him look like dirt, and has no bearing on him shooting someone who "looked like a thug".

Is molesting a kid not poor judgement? What about lack of empathy? Lack of concern over consequences? These things absolutely factor into this case, especially if you're trying to convince someone to convict murder as opposed to manslaughter.

Funkenpants is right though, they're just allegations so without proof they probably shouldn't be allowed to influence the case. Unfortunately they will.

It is all of those things, but right now it is just a news story about someone who is only now claiming something. Proving it is important, gossiping about it is only prejudicial - like you and Funkenpants just said.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Funkenpants is right though, they're just allegations so without proof they probably shouldn't be allowed to influence the case. Unfortunately they will.

It's happened on both sides as witnessed by the doctored photo of Martin as well as the reports of him having marijuana in his system and women's jewelry, most likely stolen, supposedly in his possession. All of which were used to make him look like a gangsta thug so as to justify Zimmerman shooting him.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's happened on both sides as witnessed by the doctored photo of Martin as well as the reports of him having marijuana in his system and women's jewelry, most likely stolen, supposedly in his possession.

True, and all this stuff is grist for the internet argument mill. It's just not legally relevant to the case. Even if it was relevant to an extent, it might still be excluded as being prejudicial.

The difference is that this information is being provided by the prosecution, apparently to prejudice the opinions of the public and serve no other purpose.

The defense didn't release the previous information to the media.

Trophy Husband wrote:

The defense didn't release the previous information to the media.

One, do we know that that's true? And, two, if they didn't (which I'm relatively sure they didn't), it's because they didn't have to because so many other idiots were ready to turn it into a black male=criminal thing. Never forget that Zimmerman was thought to be white, not Hispanic, early on.

Yes, we do know that. Florida Judge Kenneth Lester ordered the release of the autopsy documents. There is no information that the jewelry information came from anywhere other than an investigative reporter for the Miami Herald digging into his school record.

You can make any insinuations you'd like about motivation, but I'd like to focus on the actual information available.

We know this information was released by the prosecution. We have no reason to believe based on the facts that Zimmerman or the defense took an active part in producing the information you reference.

Having said that this trial is going to take place in front of the media and the country and both sides will be working to discredit the other, but I agree with 'pants that this seems like a shady move to poison the juror pool with information that likely would not be allowed to be presented at trial.

A different perspective. The keyest points:

Sexual abuse is a form of bullying, a violent crime whose pleasure for the attacker is far more about enjoying their power and dominance over the victim than it is about sexual urges. Subsequently, sexually violent men tend to be more violent generally, particularly against people they believe are lesser or weaker. If you're trying to establish that Zimmerman had it in him to hunt down and murder a teenager who is much smaller than himself, than a history of sexual assault does help demonstrate this.
Also: A lot of the prosecution's case depends on establishing whether or not Zimmerman is a glib liar who is capable of viciously attacking people and then playing the innocent "who me?" card while insinuating that the victim was asking for it. Pretty much all men who sexually assault women have developed an ability to do this; part of the routine of a rapist is terrifying and hurting someone only to convince the community to embrace him after the fact and write off the victim as hysterical, a liar, or a slut trying to cover her tracks. We know that most sexual assailants are repeat offenders—indeed, this is what the accuser in this case is claiming of Zimmerman—which means they have a lot of opportunities to practice playing innocent and blaming the victim after they've committed the crime. If the prosecution wants to establish that Zimmerman is the kind of guy who is capable of assaulting and even murdering someone and then playing innocent victim, a history of cutting his teeth as a sexual assailant helps establish that narrative.
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

A different perspective. The keyest points:

Sexual abuse is a form of bullying, a violent crime whose pleasure for the attacker is far more about enjoying their power and dominance over the victim than it is about sexual urges. Subsequently, sexually violent men tend to be more violent generally, particularly against people they believe are lesser or weaker. If you're trying to establish that Zimmerman had it in him to hunt down and murder a teenager who is much smaller than himself, than a history of sexual assault does help demonstrate this.
Also: A lot of the prosecution's case depends on establishing whether or not Zimmerman is a glib liar who is capable of viciously attacking people and then playing the innocent "who me?" card while insinuating that the victim was asking for it. Pretty much all men who sexually assault women have developed an ability to do this; part of the routine of a rapist is terrifying and hurting someone only to convince the community to embrace him after the fact and write off the victim as hysterical, a liar, or a slut trying to cover her tracks. We know that most sexual assailants are repeat offenders—indeed, this is what the accuser in this case is claiming of Zimmerman—which means they have a lot of opportunities to practice playing innocent and blaming the victim after they've committed the crime. If the prosecution wants to establish that Zimmerman is the kind of guy who is capable of assaulting and even murdering someone and then playing innocent victim, a history of cutting his teeth as a sexual assailant helps establish that narrative.

I totally agree with absolutely everything said in here. And I even think Zimmerman is a douche... but, doesn't the prosecution have to abide by some ethics to wait to release information like this only when its proven he did it? They are still just allegations...

PAR

par wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Good points

I totally agree with absolutely everything said in here. And I even think Zimmerman is a douche... but, doesn't the prosecution have to abide by some ethics to wait to release information like this only when its proven he did it? They are still just allegations...

PAR

I am with you 100%. Putting this out in the media is slimy, at best, and should be grounds for disbarment in my opinion. All it does to get this information out is to poison the minds of the potential jury pool and make Zimmerman look like more of a criminal. Put this out in court, with the witness under oath and it becomes a valid criticism about his character; put it out now, and it is borderline slander.

That's an interesting perspective, and I don't neccessarily disagree with it. I think a judge should have decided whether or not the information was relevant to the case after hopefully listening to some expert testimony.

As an opinion writer Marcotte has a history of convicting before all the evidence is known. From Wikipedia, salt grain implied:

Amanda Marie Marcotte (born September 2, 1977) is an American blogger best known for her writing on feminism and politics.
Marcotte attracted criticism in January 2007 for her views on the March 2006 Duke lacrosse case, when three students were accused of rape; the students were charged, but the charges were later dropped. Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the accused were "rape-loving scum." One comment in particular attracted attention:

I've been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f*cking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f*cked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.

If a jury finds Zimmerman stalked and murdered Martin, then I hope he gets the book thrown at him. I also hope an investigation is conducted regarding the rape accusations, and he's tried for that if the evidence supports it. I'm just not in favor of the media manipulation. If he's acquitted of both charges he's still going to be screwed for life.

With a high profile case I guess this type of thing is to be expected though.

FOX's Hannity interviewed Zimmerman yesterday and Zimmerman said he felt like the shooting was "all God's plan" and ended the interview saying "I do wish that there was something, anything that I could have done that wouldn't have put me in the position where I had to take his life."

I can think of any number of things he could have done--not carry a firearm, stay in his car, not stalk and confront Martin, listen to the 911 dispatcher, and more--that wouldn't have ended in the death of Martin. I have to wonder why he can't do the same.

The fact that Zimmerman chose FOX News for the interview is telling as well, especially considering the network's known political bias. I can't help but think less of Zimmerman for that especially because when he was hiding during his pre-arrest days he was actively trying to arrange an interview with Hannity. I can't imagine anyone but a religious viewer of FOX News wanting to do that. And if he was a religious viewer of the network, then he is very likely is incredibly sympathetic to their political views, which aren't exactly enlightened when it comes to topics such as race and crime.

Seriously, god's plan? That's disgusting.

OG_slinger wrote:

FOX's Hannity interviewed Zimmerman yesterday and Zimmerman said he felt like the shooting was "all God's plan" and ended the interview saying "I do wish that there was something, anything that I could have done that wouldn't have put me in the position where I had to take his life."

I can think of any number of things he could have done--not carry a firearm, stay in his car, not stalk and confront Martin, listen to the 911 dispatcher, and more--that wouldn't have ended in the death of Martin. I have to wonder why he can't do the same.

The fact that Zimmerman chose FOX News for the interview is telling as well, especially considering the network's known political bias. I can't help but think less of Zimmerman for that especially because when he was hiding during his pre-arrest days he was actively trying to arrange an interview with Hannity. I can't imagine anyone but a religious viewer of FOX News wanting to do that. And if he was a religious viewer of the network, then he is very likely is incredibly sympathetic to their political views, which aren't exactly enlightened when it comes to topics such as race and crime.

or that it was the only channel not actively calling him a racist sociopath killer may have had something to do with it.

rosenhane wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

FOX's Hannity interviewed Zimmerman yesterday and Zimmerman said he felt like the shooting was "all God's plan" and ended the interview saying "I do wish that there was something, anything that I could have done that wouldn't have put me in the position where I had to take his life."

I can think of any number of things he could have done--not carry a firearm, stay in his car, not stalk and confront Martin, listen to the 911 dispatcher, and more--that wouldn't have ended in the death of Martin. I have to wonder why he can't do the same.

The fact that Zimmerman chose FOX News for the interview is telling as well, especially considering the network's known political bias. I can't help but think less of Zimmerman for that especially because when he was hiding during his pre-arrest days he was actively trying to arrange an interview with Hannity. I can't imagine anyone but a religious viewer of FOX News wanting to do that. And if he was a religious viewer of the network, then he is very likely is incredibly sympathetic to their political views, which aren't exactly enlightened when it comes to topics such as race and crime.

or that it was the only channel not actively calling him a racist sociopath killer may have had something to do with it.

I wonder why they of all people were able to refrain from automatically objecting to the death of a black teenager?

Zimmerman balks at ABC interview after network rejects demands

The man accused of killing an unarmed Florida teenager dropped plans for a second television interview after the ABC network would not provide a month of "shelter and security" for his family, his attorney said Thursday.

George Zimmerman had been in talks with ABC's show "The View" about an interview to be aired Thursday, a day after he sat down with Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. One of the show's hosts, Barbara Walters, told viewers Thursday that she had been forced to scrub the plans when Zimmerman demanded "a condition that we could not agree to."

Walters would not specify the demand, but Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, told CNN that Zimmerman "asked for shelter and security for his wife for a month. They said they could not do that." Zimmerman had not yet agreed to sit for questions from ABC, O'Mara said, and "decided to wait on doing another interview."

But near the end of Thursday's show, Walters said Zimmerman called in and offered to talk. She refused.

"If you could not do the interview yesterday, I don't think we should do a quick one today," she said to applause from the studio audience. "If in the future you feel different, we will consider it."

O'Mara said Zimmerman is again soliciting money through the website he set up in the aftermath of the shooting, and the legal defense fund amassed so far is "basically broke." But he said Fox had not offered his client anything in exchange for its session with him, and that Zimmerman agreed to go on the show because Hannity "was fair to him from the beginning, telling everyone to not rush to judgment."

Wow...just so much there to start on...not sure where to begin.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Seriously, god's plan? That's disgusting.

When people say stuff like this, it just makes me wonder how much of a grade-A douchewaffle they think it's acceptable to worship.

The language he chooses "God's plan" demonstrates again and with tremendous authority that he is someone incapable to taking responsibility for his own fcuked up actions. He is the product of an upbringing with no consequences. Protected by his retired judge father, he never had to pay the piper for molesting his cousin, beating up his girlfriend, or assaulting a police officer. He is almost the textbook definition of a malignant narcissist who sees everything as nothing more than an inconvenience to him.

So forget the secessionists, can we just forcibly evict Florida from the US? Sell it to Cuba on the cheap or something?

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

Nomad wrote:

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

The Article wrote:

According to authorities, 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis, a black teenager, and several friends were confronted by Dunn, a white man, who pulled alongside the teens' SUV in the parking lot of a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. Dunn asked them to turn their music down, and after an exchange of words, he fired between 8 and 9 shots at the vehicle, several of which hit Davis, causing his death.

Yes.. having someone drive up to you in a public parking lot is totally jerk behavior that merits a shooting. I don't think your disclaimer works, since you say the exact opposite in the previous two sentences.

Nomad wrote:

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

I'm really glad the two countries I have lived in are places where the "lunatic with a gun" part is pretty rare.

I think the better secondary moral here is that laws that admonish folks to "stand their ground" while armed also embolden them to seek out confrontation. Had this limpdick not had a gun, he probably would have simply ignored the youths and their loud music and done what responsible adults normally do in such situations: shake their heads and mind their own fcuking business.

Nomad wrote:

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

...what? Dude, the guy with the gun was the jerk, he instigated the entire confrontation.

Maybe the secondary moral should instead be: as a general rule, avoid people you don't know at all costs, and run/drive away if someone unknown approaches you, because they might be a jerk with a gun who is blurring the lines of the "anonymous internet comment troll culture."

Farscry wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

...what? Dude, the guy with the gun was the jerk, he instigated the entire confrontation.

Maybe the secondary moral should instead be: as a general rule, avoid people you don't know at all costs, and run/drive away if someone unknown approaches you, because they might be a jerk with a gun who is blurring the lines of the "anonymous internet comment troll culture."

I think the real moral is to arm yourself and shoot anyone who attempts to confront you. Han shot first, so should you.

Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

The Article wrote:

According to authorities, 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis, a black teenager, and several friends were confronted by Dunn, a white man, who pulled alongside the teens' SUV in the parking lot of a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. Dunn asked them to turn their music down, and after an exchange of words, he fired between 8 and 9 shots at the vehicle, several of which hit Davis, causing his death.

Yes.. having someone drive up to you in a public parking lot is totally jerk behavior that merits a shooting. I don't think your disclaimer works, since you say the exact opposite in the previous two sentences.

I'm not sure how you can draw those conclusions. First, you intentionally omit most of the details when you use the phrase "someone drive up to you in a public parking lot". Are you assuming there was no possibility of a heated argument between the parties in both vehicles? Are you assuming that the music playing in a public place wasn't overly loud and profanity laced?

Second, how am I saying the opposite? What about the word "lunatic" is unclear?

Farscry wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

...what? Dude, the guy with the gun was the jerk, he instigated the entire confrontation.

Maybe the secondary moral should instead be: as a general rule, avoid people you don't know at all costs, and run/drive away if someone unknown approaches you, because they might be a jerk with a gun who is blurring the lines of the "anonymous internet comment troll culture."

I'd say the guy with the gun was more than a jerk. Lunacy seems fitting.