Star Witness

[snoopy]

Just as sure that Martin felt like he was being stalked and in fear of his life. It was dark out by the way too. What it does come down to is that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, yet he did anyway like some macho police wannabe. He was the instigator of this whole incident. None of this would have gone down if Zimmerman kept his distance or at least announced who he was. If I was a juror, I'd convict Zimmerman based just on those facts.

I have to say... I really don't want you to be on my jury if I'm ever being tried for something...

So it comes back to: Given that a fight (scuffle, whatever you want to call it) broke out, did Zimmerman have reason to fire?

Let me ask you this - on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty" - is the burden on the prosecution to prove that he could not, did not, or should not have been in fear for his life/irreparable damage (and which one of the three); or is the burden on the defense to prove that he was justified in his fear?

It kind of sounds like you're stating the latter, which seems to backwards to me.

Also, If Zimmerman claims that he was in fear for his life, and the rest of the evidence isn't conclusive on the matter, does the jury have to believe him?

[Foil]

We DO KNOW that cries for help were heard and a witness went out to see what was up and he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman unleashing numerous blows at Zimmermans head.

There are differing witness accounts about that part of the fight (but you appear to be convinced by the defense witnesses?). The only real evidence is the physical evidence that the shot was fired while Martin was on top, and the injuries on Zimmerman's head; this supports Zimmerman's claim about being on bottom with his head pushed into the ground when he fired... but it doesn't serve as evidence one way or another about who initiated / who chased / etc.

Same with the yelling on tape. Unless you already buy one story or the other, the differing accounts (e.g. "that's my son" from both mothers) just don't get us anywhere.

Zimmermans history with calling the police after spotting suspicious characters and NOT ever confronting them directly establishes Zimmerman as being non confrontational.

Or... it establishes Zimmerman as fed up with suspicious characters never getting caught, and insistent on finally confronting one (note that this is consistent with the audio recording).

Honestly, if you're more convinced by the defense's case, that's fine; there are elements of their case that are convincing. I can't say the same about your bold claims that the prosecution has zero case and Z was completely blameless / just doing his duty.

So it comes back to: Given that a fight (scuffle, whatever you want to call it) broke out, did Zimmerman have reason to fire?

...is the burden on the prosecution to prove that he could not, did not, or should not have been in fear for his life/irreparable damage (and which one of the three); or is the burden on the defense to prove that he was justified in his fear?

My understanding:

Given the 2nd-degree murder charge, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant killed the victim, meant to use lethal force, and I believe they have to prove malice as well. As for the defense, in order to use "self-defense", they have burden of demonstrating the defendant had reason to fear for his life.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. (Really.)

--------------

Personally, as I'm watching the evidence and accounts play out, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the truth is less like either the prosecution's or defense's account, and more like "angry-armed-watchman-on-meds and agitated-teenager-on-pot have deadly confrontation in the dark." I think it's clear M ended up on top at the end of the fight, but not yet convinced Z had legitimate reason to draw a gun and fire (unless something corroborates his account of M grabbing his gun, which would be enough in my mind).

[Foil]

I'm just curious:

For those who believe there should be an acquittal on the 2nd-degree murder charge, what do you think the proper charge should have been?

Manslaughter?
Justifiable homicide? (i.e. no charge)

[woodchip]

And that phrase somehow makes him a "racist thug." Got it.

So if I told you [insert favorite black person] was a creepy ass nigga and then went and beat the crap out of him... that would make me like Mother Teresa ?

[CUDA]

I'm just curious:

For those who believe there should be an acquittal on the 2nd-degree murder charge, what do you think the proper charge should have been?

Manslaughter?
Justifiable homicide? (i.e. no charge)

according to FL law, and the evidence that has been presented, the Police acted properly in not charging him initially.(no charge) it wasn't until the politicians came onto the scene that they filed charges and started playing the race game.

[Will Robinson]

We DO KNOW that cries for help were heard and a witness went out to see what was up and he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman unleashing numerous blows at Zimmermans head.

There are differing witness accounts about that part of the fight (but you appear to be convinced by the defense witnesses?).

No, it was the prosecution witness who lives in the condo 15 feet from where the shooting took place. He testified Zimmerman was on bottom, Martin on top straddling Zimmerman and reigning blows down at Zimmermans head. He saw that after hearing screaming and stepped out his back door to see what was going on.
I suggest the guy on bottom getting his head beat in would be the one doing the screaming...

.

The only real evidence is the physical evidence that the shot was fired while Martin was on top, and the injuries on Zimmerman's head; this supports Zimmerman's claim about being on bottom with his head pushed into the ground when he fired... but it doesn't serve as evidence one way or another about who initiated / who chased / etc.

It supports Zimmermans claim he was in fear of being severely hurt or killed. And it does nothing to prove Zimmerman started the attack. Nothing that anyone can call "evidence" supports the Zimmerman started the contact theory!

Same with the yelling on tape. Unless you already buy one story or the other, the differing accounts (e.g. "that's my son" from both mothers) just don't get us anywhere.

But, as I said before, if you consider the things we DO KNOW it becomes much more likely the guy on bottom was the one who would be asking for help and to be screaming for help out to the world indicates that person was in an extreme state of fear.

You see, if you simply state both sides now have witnesses that claim their guy was screaming and don't apply what other facts have been established you at best have the stalemate.
Well a stalemate is not enough to disprove Zimmerman's contention of self defense. The State must disprove his claim because there IS other evidence to support it.

If you don't insist on examining the screaming in a vacuum, and instead make a determination of what is most likely and reasonably the source of the screaming (which the jury must do) then you use the other evidence you have to either support Zimmerman's story or tear it apart.
The other evidence, who was on top....Martins father initially saying he wasn't sure if it was his son but now says he is sure... will lead a reasonable person to recognize there is a very reasonable doubt to believe the prosecutions assertions with regard to who was screaming and why...

So for those who have the luxury of reserving judgement the audio can be a stalemate but for the jury they have to make a judgement and the judgement should be based on the most reasonable interpretation....therefore I suggest the audio is in Zimmerman's favor.

Zimmermans history with calling the police after spotting suspicious characters and NOT ever confronting them directly establishes Zimmerman as being non confrontational.

Or... it establishes Zimmerman as fed up with suspicious characters never getting caught, and insistent on finally confronting one (note that this is consistent with the audio recording).

No, I don't think the conclusion that Zimmerman was frustrated AND decided to confront Martin can be drawn from the audio. You can tell he was exasperated with the previous suspects getting away before the cops show up but his claim is that, to reach a better outcome this time he walked past where Martin turned toward his fathers house to get a street number so the police would roll up to the current location instead of the location he was at when he first made the call...
The audio is no less supportive of Zimmerman's story than the one you suggest. And again, the jury will have to decide which is more likely..... is Zimmerman the guy who never has given any sign of hateful or racial state of mind, never confronted anyone directly before...or is Zimmerman a guy who stalked the kid because he is black and started a fight and then shot him out of hatred!

Honestly, if you're more convinced by the defense's case, that's fine; there are elements of their case that are convincing. I can't say the same about your bold claims that the prosecution has zero case and Z was completely blameless / just doing his duty.

If Z is within his rights for self defense, and there isn't any evidence that proves he wasn't, it doesn't matter what I or you think of his part in contributing to the outcome. As far as the law is concerned he is innocent at that point. Blame is a moving target and irrelevant in a criminal court. I blame Z for not doing a better job which would have led to police handling any necessary shooting... but if M stepped out of the shadows and started beating Z into the cement I certainly don't think Z lost the right to defend himself just because he was a careless watchmen. There is no evidence to prove M had any right to be on top of Z smashing his head into cement. There is evidence to suggest M was mad at Z for following him and that leads to judgement on who may have started the contact.

[Foil]

...There are differing witness accounts about that part of the fight (but you appear to be convinced by the defense witnesses?).

No, it was the prosecution witness who lives in the condo 15 feet from where the shooting took place. He testified Zimmerman was on bottom, Martin on top...

Again, there are many differing witness accounts about that part. What makes you so convinced that the witness you referenced (John Good, I assume) has the correct one?

Nothing that anyone can call "evidence" supports the Zimmerman started the contact theory!

And conversely, there's no solid evidence that supports the "Martin was the aggressor" theory, either.

[Personally, given the witness testimony and the recording, it seems to me that this was two angry (and possibly both under influence of meds/drugs) guys... I'd bet that they were both confrontational.]

Well a stalemate is not enough to disprove Zimmerman's contention of self defense. The State must disprove his claim because there IS other evidence to support it.

My understanding is that a claim of self-defense in a homicide legally puts the burden of proving reason to fear for life on the one making that claim. (As I said earlier, I'm open to correction if I don't have that right.)

Zimmermans history with calling the police after spotting suspicious characters and NOT ever confronting them directly establishes Zimmerman as being non confrontational.

Or... it establishes Zimmerman as fed up with suspicious characters never getting caught, and insistent on finally confronting one (note that this is consistent with the audio recording).

No, I don't think the conclusion that Zimmerman was frustrated AND decided to confront Martin can be drawn from the audio.

We'll have to disagree on that one, because I think his intent on confrontation is fairly clear.

[Top Gun]

The word "cracker/white boy" is just as offensive and equivocal to me as the, O man, here I go, the N-word.

...you've gotta be kidding. There's no way on this green Earth that "cracker" and "★■◆●" are equally-offensive terms from an historical standpoint. Hell, as far as I'm concerned, "cracker" as a term doesn't mean anything at all; it has no underpinnings. I'd sit there and laugh if someone called me that.

So if I told you [insert favorite black person] was a creepy ass nigga and then went and beat the crap out of him... that would make me like Mother Teresa ?

See above. Also I'm glad you were there so you can tell us exactly how this whole incident played out.

Should I find it telling that it's all of the older white gun nuts around here who are getting the most butthurt over this prosecution?

[flip]

I honestly cannot believe how narrow-minded you are. Do you have any ideas that are your own? Sheesh. The words means nothing, it's the spirit and intent behind them. Both are derogatory, racist remarks, exactly the same.

[Top Gun]

...dude. "★■◆●" has a MASSIVE amount of racial baggage attached to it, going back to antebellum times, a history that's almost completely absent from "cracker." If someone refers to you as the latter, it's one individual's malice at the worst. If you refer to someone as the former, you, I, and everyone else know the weight behind it. I suggest you attempt to learn the difference, or else you can just nonsensically call people "narrow-minded" instead I guess.

[Spidey]

Lol TG, never been on the brunt end of a racial slur volley have you. “White Ass Cracker” was the retort of choice when the word “★■◆●” was used in North Philly…and you can believe me, it was intended to hurt and hurt deep, just like its counterpoint.

White assed Honkey was also very popular, but it was used later mostly by younger people, but “cracker” was used by the older people, and you knew what was meant when it was used, especially when used with the rest of the blatant remarks that would sometimes accompany it.

Believe me, I have a deep understanding of what it means to be on the other side of the coin, not something most white people can say.

...................

And “creepy ass cracker” is a pretty high caliber insult, not something you would expect to come out of the mouth of “ a nice a little choir boy”.

[flip]

TG has a problem looking beyond the surface of things, maybe I should have said "shallow" instead?

[Top Gun]

Lol TG, never been on the brunt end of a racial slur volley have you. “White Ass Cracker” was the retort of choice when the word “★■◆●” was used in North Philly…and you can believe me, it was intended to hurt and hurt deep, just like its counterpoint.

White assed Honkey was also very popular, but it was used later mostly by younger people, but “cracker” was used by the older people, and you knew what was meant when it was used, especially when used with the rest of the blatant remarks that would sometimes accompany it.

Tell me, though, what does that word actually mean to you? What sort of history do you have with it? I mean beyond knowing that the person uttering it is saying, "Yeah I really don't like you," what sort of associations does that word imply to your standard generic white dude? We weren't slaves, and we didn't experience systemic institutionalized racism literally within the last fifty years...the slur "★■◆●" is associated with both of those, and "cracker" doesn't have any connections that are remotely as serious. Hell, until I ran a quick Wiki search, I had no idea what the roots of that term were, and even after reading it it's not exactly much of an insult. Neither it nor "honky" were really used in the perjorative sense until the 1960s or so, and that was only because black militant figures wanted something to act as an attempted rebuttal to "★■◆●."

TG has a problem looking beyond the surface of things, maybe I should have said "shallow" instead?

...seriously, what the hell are you talking about.

[Spidey]

It would be hard to explain what those terms meant to the people on the brunt end of them during my youth, because this is not a PG forum, that’s why I simply left it at “hurt”.

Words like these are used in context, mostly irrespective to their origins.

[flip]

and that was only because black militant figures wanted something to act as an attempted rebuttal to "★■◆●."

LOL! You kill me

[CUDA]

the "history" of the word as you put it means nothing. the length of time a racial slur is around doesn't change the fact that it still is a racial slur.

[Tunnelcat]

Just as sure that Martin felt like he was being stalked and in fear of his life. It was dark out by the way too. What it does come down to is that Zimmerman was told not to approach Martin, yet he did anyway like some macho police wannabe. He was the instigator of this whole incident. None of this would have gone down if Zimmerman kept his distance or at least announced who he was. If I was a juror, I'd convict Zimmerman based just on those facts.

No TC, Martin was in a gated community and not ( I'm assuming here) a open walk thru neighborhood. By your statement we shouldn't follow any suspicious stranger walking around trying to lure little kids away from their homes. As a member of the neighborhood watch program, Zimmerman had every right to follow someone around that shouldn't be there. If Martin simply asked Zimmerman who he was and what was he doing instead of acting like a racist thug, Martin would be alive today.

And if that wannabe moron Zimmerman had "identified" himself verbally as a neighborhood watch patrol, maybe Martin wouldn't have responded in fear. Martin had every right to be in that community since his grandmother lived there and he was headed to her house when the confrontation occurred.

[Will Robinson]

...
And if that wannabe moron Zimmerman had "identified" himself verbally as a neighborhood watch patrol, maybe Martin wouldn't have responded in fear. Martin had every right to be in that community since his grandmother lived there and he was headed to her house when the confrontation occurred.

Having someone follow you isn't an imminent threat to your life.
Having your head pounded on cement is.
There is evidence of the later and only conjecture to support the former.

There is nothing illegal about following someone, whether you identify yourself to them or not. And if you don't want to confront them you don't shout out 'I'm the neighborhood watch'
There is something illegal about punching someone in the face, knocking them down, jumping on them and pounding their head into the cement.

So if you want to play the "if" game why not start with the more serious offender first?

Sure Zimmerman could have used a more forward approach if he wanted a confrontation and Martin could have refrained from violent assault if he didn't want to hurt Zimmerman.

[snoopy]

My understanding:

Given the 2nd-degree murder charge, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant killed the victim, meant to use lethal force, and I believe they have to prove malice as well. As for the defense, in order to use "self-defense", they have burden of demonstrating the defendant had reason to fear for his life.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. (Really.)

I don't know the exact way it works. I'd be interested to know what the judge's instructions to the jury on the matter are...

[CUDA]

and that was only because black militant figures wanted something to act as an attempted rebuttal to "★■◆●."

LOL! You kill me

Ya so in his own post he says "cracker" is not a racial slur, yet he also says that blacks came up with the word to be a racial slur to rebut being called a ★■◆●. Kinda of talking out of both sides of his face on that one.

[CUDA]

"On Wednesday, Judicial Watched announced that the Department of Justice had turned over documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request showing that the Community Relations Service (CRS), a small division of the DOJ, was sent to Sanford, Florida after the Trayvon Martin shooting to help manage rallies and protests."

so one has to wonder why the DOJ was race baiting

So much for justices being blind

[Will Robinson]

...There are differing witness accounts about that part of the fight (but you appear to be convinced by the defense witnesses?).

No, it was the prosecution witness who lives in the condo 15 feet from where the shooting took place. He testified Zimmerman was on bottom, Martin on top...

Again, there are many differing witness accounts about that part. What makes you so convinced that the witness you referenced (John Good, I assume) has the correct one?

Can you link any of the witness testimony that contradicts Good's testimony. I know there was one woman who saw Zimmerman standing over Martin but that turns out to be after the shooting. And one who initially thought Zimmerman was on top and then retracted that theory and switched to Zimmerman being on bottom after cross examination.

Good was much closer than any others and much more compelling than any I heard.
Maybe you have one that I didn't hear?

I think his intent on confrontation is fairly clear.

I think your perception that that is what happened is clear but can you cite any evidence the jury heard/saw that supports your theory over the assertions of the defense?

As I see it Zimmerman said 'these guys always get away' and he followed Martin on foot to be able to keep him located. He also asked the 911 operator to have the responding policemen call his cell phone to enable him to give a precise location of the suspect when they arrived.
He walked past the dark path between buildings Martin took to be able to give them a nearby street number when they called.

It sure sounds to me like Zimmerman was trying to shadow Martin in anticipation that his efforts were going to lead the police right to Martins location in real time.
It doesn't make sense that he told the police those things, knew they were already on the way there and still set out to confront Martin face to face when he had been closer to Martin prior to that. If his intention was to get face to face he had ample opportunity and didn't act on it.

Another question for you. You kept saying the head beating into cement doesn't warrant Zimmerman fearing for his life because it was a street fight or scuffle...but if Martin had tried to touch Zimmermans gun then it proves Zimmerman could have been afraid enough to fear death.

Well, if Martins actions up to that point so far don't indicate an intent to do grave bodily harm why can you assume he would suddenly change motives just because he took Zimmermans gun? Maybe he was just going to disarm Zimmerman....

Obviously I think that is a crazy line of reasoning but if you are so sure Martin didn't convince Zimmerman he meant to cause him grave bodily harm by smashing his head into cement why should Zimmerman be concerned with Martin disarming him?

[woodchip]

so one has to wonder why the DOJ was race baiting

Wasn't that exactly what Obama was doing when he made the "son" statement? DOJ officials were simply the obedient poodles of the President.

[Foil]

Can you link any of the witness testimony that contradicts Good's testimony.

Two of the prosecution witnesses recounted Z getting up from on top of M: [Prosecution witness testimony - neighbors]

I think his intent on confrontation is fairly clear.

I think your perception that that is what happened is clear but can you cite any evidence the jury heard/saw that supports your theory over the assertions of the defense?

The recording is clear that Z ignored directions not to pursue. That's pretty convincing, in my book.

Another question for you. You kept saying the head beating into cement doesn't warrant Zimmerman fearing for his life because it was a street fight or scuffle...but if Martin had tried to touch Zimmermans gun then it proves Zimmerman could have been afraid enough to fear death.

Well, if Martins actions up to that point so far don't indicate an intent to do grave bodily harm why can you assume he would suddenly change motives just because he took Zimmermans gun? Maybe he was just going to disarm Zimmerman....

Based on my own (limited) experience in physical fights, I see punches, pushing head into the ground, etc. as somewhat different from going for the kill (eyes, throat, going for a weapon, etc.). That's why I'm a bit skeptical about the "Martin went for the gun" account; it just doesn't seem to fit the evidence and descriptions of the fight.

[Foil]

I don't know the exact way it works. I'd be interested to know what the judge's instructions to the jury on the matter are...

Same here. Jury instructions are forthcoming, and there look to be some surprises...

Right now, looks like the judge is going to allow the jury to consider manslaughter (which I personally think is reasonable). and has yet to decide on whether to allow consideration of third-degree murder (which I personally think is bizarre, because it requires the killing to have occurred during a separate crime).

What do you guys think of the alternate-charge considerations?

[Edited: Looks like the judge will not allow the third-degree murder option.]

[Tunnelcat]

Having someone follow you isn't an imminent threat to your life.
Having your head pounded on cement is.
There is evidence of the later and only conjecture to support the former.

There is nothing illegal about following someone, whether you identify yourself to them or not. And if you don't want to confront them you don't shout out 'I'm the neighborhood watch'
There is something illegal about punching someone in the face, knocking them down, jumping on them and pounding their head into the cement.

So if you want to play the "if" game why not start with the more serious offender first?

Sure Zimmerman could have used a more forward approach if he wanted a confrontation and Martin could have refrained from violent assault if he didn't want to hurt Zimmerman.

Sure it's legal to follow someone. But how about in the dark and then following that someone everywhere he went? I'd sure be creeped out if someone was following me and stuck to my tail if I deliberately tried to loose them, which I'd try at first. I'd be suspicious as hell either way. Being a woman, I'd go to the nearest busy place and seek assistance. If I were a teenaged male full of testosterone and spit, I might be more likely to confront the person out of bravado if they didn't bother to identify their intentions to me sooner. That's why it was very important for Zimmerman to identify himself to Martin at a distance, to prevent a possible violent confrontation. The point of being a security guard is to identify him or herself to people they see and ask those people what they're doing in the area if they are suspicious of any activity. If the guard thinks it's too dangerous, call the police and FOLLOW THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. Rent-a-guards are not the police. Zimmerman went in with all the bravado and intent to get the bastard so he wouldn't get away. He even mumbled that. He never once thought that Martin might just be a resident of the community walking home in the dark.

Yes Foil, manslaughter is a good alternative. 2 people got violent towards one another. One died and the other was responsible by choosing to take the deadly way out of the situation because of self preservation. The whole thing could have been defused before it got to that point.

[Will Robinson]

Foil, those other witness accounts are very weak if you are trying to counter Goods testimony with them! Very very weak by comparison. I don't know how you can use them objectively to suggest they are equal in any way.

...
The recording is clear that Z ignored directions not to pursue. That's pretty convincing, in my book.

He wasn't "directed" to not pursue. The emergency operator told him 'they don't need him to do that'. The operator doesn't have the authority to direct him to anything one way or the other and their policy is to not direct people one way or the other regarding he law to avoid law suits.
If you are a neighborhood watch person, instructed by police previously on how to observe and not confront...and you are doing that then you might want to dismiss the operators comments that following the suspect isn't needed and continue with your efforts to follow them. Regardless of whether you think it was wise I don't see how that decision can be extrapolated into your contention that it proves Zimmerman had a desire to confront Martin face to face. Zimmerman acknowledged he was following not confronting....the operator didn't ask "are you confronting the suspect?"...

You have assigned that different behavior, confrontation as opposed to following, to Zimmerman with no evidence to support the assignment.
That is why I asked what evidence do you have that supports the 'desire-to-confront' theory.

Another question for you. You kept saying the head beating into cement doesn't warrant Zimmerman fearing for his life because it was a street fight or scuffle...but if Martin had tried to touch Zimmermans gun then it proves Zimmerman could have been afraid enough to fear death.

Well, if Martins actions up to that point so far don't indicate an intent to do grave bodily harm why can you assume he would suddenly change motives just because he took Zimmermans gun? Maybe he was just going to disarm Zimmerman....

Based on my own (limited) experience in physical fights, I see punches, pushing head into the ground, etc. as somewhat different from going for the kill (eyes, throat, going for a weapon, etc.). That's why I'm a bit skeptical about the "Martin went for the gun" account; it just doesn't seem to fit the evidence and descriptions of the fight.

You didn't answer the question.
If you think Martins actions of punching him in the nose, knocking him on his back then jumping on top of him and pounding his head into the cement is not cause for fearing for grave bodily injury instead it was merely a "fight"....then why would Martins, hypothetical as you proposed, going for the gun suddenly transform him into an attempted murderer?

You don't know if he merely was attempting to disarm Zimmerman for his own safe retreat after winning the fight in that hypothetical scenario so how can you then justify Zimmerman shooting him?

You seem to be able to draw the line in a very bizarre place and defining the point of transition where Martin exhibited a desire to cause Zimmerman grave bodily harm....

If beating the mans head into the cement isn't a threat but taking the gun is....then why? Explain where and why you suddenly see evidence of Martins transformation from non threat into threat.

[Foil]

You have assigned that different behavior, confrontation as opposed to following, to Zimmerman with no evidence to support the assignment.
That is why I asked what evidence do you have that supports the 'desire-to-confront' theory.

You can dispute the authority of the 911 operator over Zimmerman, but we know a couple of things directly from the recording:
* Z was very frustrated at M getting away.
* Z intentionally ignored the request/order/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to break off, and pursued.

Given Z's attitude on the recording, plus the above... is confrontational behavior, in my book. You can disagree if you'd like.

If you think Martins actions of punching him in the nose, knocking him on his back then jumping on top of him and pounding his head into the cement is not cause for fearing for grave bodily injury then why would Martins, hypothetical as you proposed, going for the gun suddenly transform him into an attempted murderer? ... Explain where and why you suddenly see evidence of Martins transformation from non threat into threat.

I think you're making my point. It's a strange transition, from punching/pushing to going for a weapon.

Let's say it happened that way, though... let's suppose for some reason in the middle of the fight, M switches from attacking Z's head to grabbing for his gun. From Z's point of view, that's a big change - the fight suddenly went from "I'm getting beaten up" to "this guy's gonna kill me". That would be a legitimate self-defense. (Note that the same would apply if Z had gone for his gun and M had grabbed it first and fired.)

[Top Gun]

and that was only because black militant figures wanted something to act as an attempted rebuttal to "★■◆●."

LOL! You kill me

Ya so in his own post he says "cracker" is not a racial slur, yet he also says that blacks came up with the word to be a racial slur to rebut being called a ★■◆●. Kinda of talking out of both sides of his face on that one.

Can you point out to me where I said that it wasn't a slur? What I said is that it's an incredibly weaksauce one, which entered modern usage as a reactionary response to a much older and more significant slur, and which doesn't have much in the way of historical baggage attached to it. It is one that holds no real meaning to me personally, and to most white people I'd wager, in stark contrast to "★■◆●."

Seriously I don't want to get into the whole "privilege" thing, because that frequently makes me grit my own teeth and would probably wind up as a tumblr parody more than anything else, but y'know.

[Will Robinson]

...

Let's say it happened that way, though... let's suppose for some reason in the middle of the fight, M switches from attacking Z's head to grabbing for his gun. From Z's point of view, that's a big change - the fight suddenly went from "I'm getting beaten up" to "this guy's gonna kill me". That would be a legitimate self-defense. ....

No, Z's point of view is known...from his own mouth...that he was already in fear of his life and that M's hands near the gun made him draw and fire.
He perceived his head hitting the cement as deadly.i think most people would agree that head into cement is way beyond a "fight" and is quite lethal.

[Spidey]

Racial slurs aren’t measured by the baggage they carry, or what they mean to the intended…all that matters is how it was meant by the person that said it.

[Top Gun]

Well, that's not really true, though...like if someone of another race was pissed at you, and they called you something like "Wonder Bread," you'd probably just laugh it off, because that's just silly. But the same isn't true if you used the term "★■◆●," or "wetback," or any other number of extremely-loaded slurs from the past.

[Spidey]

Well, my generation knows what it means to be called a “cracker” but I’m going to let this one go…because I frankly have never seen anyone defend the usage of a racial slur before, so I doubt there is much left to say.

[Will Robinson]

Well, that's not really true, though...like if someone of another race was pissed at you, and they called you something like "Wonder Bread," you'd probably just laugh it off, because that's just silly. But the same isn't true if you used the term "★■◆●," or "wetback," or any other number of extremely-loaded slurs from the past.

It certainly IS true and especially in this case where it was one black person telling another black person that the guy doing the following was a cracker.
He didn't say it to offend the white guy who couldn't hear him, he said it because it is a derogatory racial description. The relevance of its use is to illustrate the users mindset to invoke race as a disparagement, not a measurement of how offended the person who never heard it was!

The prosecution wanted the jury to believe Zimmerman was motivated by race but the only evidence of racial bias was shown to belong to Martin. As with most of their case they proved the opposite of what they hoped for.

[callmeslick]

I sort of started paying attention to this case late, the initial hoo-hah was far too political theater in nature(on both sides), but it is a fascinating one, and should be seen as a core test case for Florida Self-Defense (Stand your Ground) law. Here's why I think so: This case presents a set of circumstantial facts and a handful of core, unchallenged facts. Now, as Flip pointed out, above, to Foil, once Z was in a close range altercation with M, his life could have been ended at any moment, due to the unpredicatable nature of street fights. One bad step, slip, whatever, and without any intent, a person could get killed. There is no question that by the time the actual physical struggle ensued, Zimmerman was at a clear disadvantage(save the gun). Thus, if one looks at the final moments only, Zimmerman can make a case of necessary self defense against potentially fatal events. However, if one looks at the whole process which led up to the fight, things change. Would anyone have gotten shot if: 1) Z never got out and started following M? or 2) Z had kept distance, done what he was supposed to do and called authorities and WAITED for the authorities or 3) Zimmerman have avoided close range contact when he continued to tail Martin? If the answer to any and all of those is NO, by my way of thinking, Zimmerman has a real problem because he becomes the instigator of the incident, and it doesn't seem that such is permissable as an excuse for using the gun. Fascinating case, it will be interesting what those 6 women on the jury decide.

[Foil]

Anyone want to venture a prediction on the verdict?

[I doubt the state will get the 2nd-degree murder conviction, but the manslaughter charge might stick.]

[callmeslick]

lower charges more likely. I've said for weeks, that I think he'll be NG on the murder rap.

[Will Robinson]

He didn't claim stand your ground....

[callmeslick]

well, isn't that a component of 'self defense', Will? You don't get charged with a Stand Your Ground offense, you get charged(in this case) with murder.
The Stand Your Ground legislation merely guides the conditions under which homicide is justified.

[Spidey]

In my opinion slick, that’s just a little to convenient, anyway you look as this Zimmerman has to be the instigator, the question really lies in whether someone has the right to go on neighborhood watch without being attacked. (assuming Zimmerman didn't actually attack Martin)

If there are problems with that issue, like wearing something that identifies you, then that issue needs to be addressed, but I’m under the impression, Zimmerman’s actions were all legal.