Is Canada a Safer Alternative After Zimmerman Verdict?

[leroyjenkens]

Since when is killing a 17 year old kid the only way to get him to stop beating you, especially when you have the butt end of your gun to beat him unconscious with like lurflurf said? I agree with anti that unequivocal evidence for the case was not of luxury here and that Zimmerman's team made compelling arguments but your argument makes no sense.

My argument makes no sense because you're assuming he could have used the butt end of his gun to beat him unconscious? I don't know how that takes all the sense away from my argument, but ok.
It's easy to say what he could have done, but you don't know if that was even possible from the position they were in, or if Zimmerman was coherent while being beaten to not only accurately hit the boy with it, but have the presence of mind to use the gun for a purpose it's not intended for.
You made a huge assumption and said my argument makes zero sense because it doesn't take into account your assumptions. I don't understand that.

Assume the following events (I did not say it happened like this, this is just an example)
- A attacks B
- B defends himself and stars beating up A
- A is losing the fight and is risking to be beaten to death, he draws a gun and shoots

I think that in this case, A should be guilty of manslaughter since he started the fight.

So the big question for me is whether Zimmerman started the fight or not.

I think for A to be guilty of manslaughter, the way the fight starts makes all the difference.
There's a huge difference between A simply confronting B, and us calling that "starting the fight", and A physically attacking B.

 

[micromass]

Settling disputes of this nature is why we have courts. The jury already decided.

And nothing prevents us to discuss the verdict and whether it's just or not.

 

[DavidSnider]

I guess I don't understand how anybody could find justice was not served in this case.

It went to trial. Zimmerman wasn't given any sort of special treatment like in the OJ case. If anything it was the opposite. The jury weighed the evidence and found him not guilty.

Isn't this how the justice system is supposed to work?

 

[D H]

Since when is killing a 17 year old kid the only way to get him to stop beating you, especially when you have the butt end of your gun to beat him unconscious with like lurflurf said?

That's an irrelevant argument. There's nothing in the Florida law on justifiable use of deadly force that says that deadly force can only be used as a last resort.

That Zimmerman did kill Martin was not a contested issue. The key issue at hand in the trial was whether or not this killing was justifiable. The homicide was justifiable if Zimmerman's description of the events that transpired that night was true. The state therefore had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's description was false. More than half of the state's own witnesses ended up corroborating what Zimmerman claimed happened. That does not meet the standard of unreasonable doubt.

 

[verty]

The homicide was justifiable if Zimmerman's description of the events that transpired that night was true. The state therefore had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's description was false.

Why? Why did they have to do this? Where is this written? I'm wondering where this comes from. Trayvon Martin being dead, he was not around to refute anything Zimmerman had to say. Zimmerman could say really whatever he liked, and only the evidence could speak against him. Is this the meaning of reasonable doubt, that doubt in the face of evidence to the contrary is unreasonable?

But here's the thing. If only the evidence can speak against Zimmerman's description, evidence against must be weighed much more highly than evidence for. For obvious reasons, if the description is true, the evidence should all support it, nothing should be out of place. If even one thing is out of place, there is reason to doubt the story.

There is also a moral dimension to this. If what Evo said is true, that Trayvon Martin ran away and was pursued, he might well have been in a defensive mood. Here is a guy chasing him, perhaps he wants to rob him. He must defend himself. Zimmerman gets in his face, he punches him. This is a normal reaction, a warning if you like, stop hassling me, more of this will follow if you continue. Martin could even have leaned over him, to say "stop chasing me". From a moral standpoint, none of this is strange or unexpected. This is a description of events that does not morally justify the shooting. It's like tit for tat, he got in my face, chasing me, not leaving me alone, I get in his face, let him know that I don't like it.

So I go back to this issue of reasonable doubt. DH says that if Zimmerman's story is correct, the killing was justified. Does he mean morally justified? If so, even he believes that the jury's task is a moral one. Because what is moral and legal are not always in agreement. I think the jury is there to sort out the disagreement between these two spheres. That is, the jury of one's peers is the moral authority against the legal authority - the court. What is moral should come into it.

If Trayvon Martin did only what one might expect him to do and it got him killed, something is seriously wrong. The prosecution's argument was (I think) that this makes it second-degree murder. Here was a guy that got killed and shouldn't have been, goes the argument. Zimmerman killed him and the only argument against this is his assertion that he was having his head slammed into the pavement. Martin was on top of him doing this and he defended himself. I have reasonable doubt that this even happened.

 

[DavidSnider]

But here's the thing. If only the evidence can speak against Zimmerman's description, evidence against must be weighed much more highly than evidence for. For obvious reasons, if the description is true, the evidence should all support it, nothing should be out of place. If even one thing is out of place, there is reason to doubt the story.

This is not how the US legal system works. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. What you are suggesting is that the defense has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is innocent.

There is a reason you plead "not guilty" rather than "innocent". The law doesn't require you to prove that you are innocent.

 

[nsaspook]

I guess I don't understand how anybody could find justice was not served in this case.

It went to trial. Zimmerman wasn't given any sort of special treatment like in the OJ case. If anything it was the opposite. The jury weighed the evidence and found him not guilty.

Isn't this how the justice system is supposed to work?

Yes, when you overcharge a person due to political pressure, try to twist the facts into a emotional fantasy, put on prime witnesses that mainly help the defense you should lose the case.

 

[mheslep]

Zimmerman acted unlawfully, the neighborhood watch (see the video in my link) does not allow the watch person to follow or confront anyone. They are supposed to call police and stay away. Not only did he violate the watch rules, he went against the police when they told him to stop following Martin and let them handle it.

Zimmerman may have been unwise (at least), but none of the above is unlawful. The Watch is not the law, and not even the 911 operator's "we don't need you to do that" is a legal order. The first illegal act here occurred when one physically assaulted the other, before the gun was produced.

 

[jim hardy]

Why? Why did they have to do this? Where is this written? I'm wondering where this comes from.

Supreme court.

Proof, Burden of Proof, and Presumptions.—The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “[protect] the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.”83

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14efrag7_user.html

 

[D H]

Why? Why did they have to do this? Where is this written? I'm wondering where this comes from.

In a sense, it goes all the way back to the Magna Carta. The standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies throughout much of Great Britain and its former colonies. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

In the US, we have a concept of due process, granted by the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The Supreme Court has interpreted that as meaning a trial by jury with the prosecution having to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship essentially said that that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies to *all* criminal proceedings. The prosecution *never* gets the benefit of the doubt in any criminal proceeding.

DH says that if Zimmerman's story is correct, the killing was justified. Does he mean morally justified?

I meant legally justified.

There are plenty of acts that are perfectly legal that are at best questionable from a moral perspective. Whether what Zimmerman did was moral was not a question put to the jury. They had to decide whether there was any reasonable doubt that it might have been legally justified.

Zimmerman killed him

That part was not contested.

and the only argument against this is his assertion that he was having his head slammed into the pavement. Martin was on top of him doing this and he defended himself. I have reasonable doubt that this even happened.

You are applying the standard of reasonable doubt the wrong way. The correct way to apply this standard is to ask yourself whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing could not possibly have happened the way Zimmerman claimed events unfolded. The prosecution did not do this. Most of the prosecution's own witnesses ended up corroborating Zimmerman's story. The prosecution did most of the work for the defense.

 

[member 392791]

And Zimmerman weighed more and had a loaded gun. According to your link Did you have some kind of point?

I was addressing the other poster that I quoted about his comment regarding Martin being some small frail child. I have nothing to say right now about the verdict.

 

[EricVT]

But Jim, the fact is that Martin wasn't doing anything wrong, and Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, disobeying both the neighborhood watch rules and direct orders from the police to stop following Martin. It wouldn't matter if Martin had murdered someone previously, he wasn't breaking any laws at the time according to Zimmerman himself. The stuff you posted is a smear campaign that has nothing to do with Martin's actions on the night he was murdered.

You are saying that it was a police officer giving a direct order for Zimmerman to stop following Martin. Can you provide your source for this?

 

[Evo]

You are saying that it was a police officer giving a direct order for Zimmerman to stop following Martin. Can you provide your source for this?

The call to police dispatch Zimmerman made, [STRIKE]I assumed[/STRIKE] it was the police, it wasn't 911. Do you have proof it was not the police number that he'd call for a non-emergency call? The news said it was to a non-emergency number. Please post your source if you disagree.

George Zimmerman calls police 8-3-2011
1:11PM EDT, July 12, 2012 – (01:46

Audio of phone call placed by George Zimmerman to Sanford Police on 8-3-2011 describing a suspicious subject he thought to be a burglary suspect.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/71028351/#pl-71029300

It has a list of his calls to the police.

George Zimmerman call to Sanford Police on the night he shot Trayvon Martin (explicit language)

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-911-call-zimmerman-made-to-sanford-police/vGZq9/

Listen to the call being answered "Stanford Police Department", it's not 911 because it's not an emergency.

 

[micromass]

The call to police dispatch Zimmerman made, I assumed it was the police, it wasn't 911. Do you have proof it was not the police number that he'd call for a non-emergency call? The news said it was to a non-emergency number. Please post your source if you disagree.

You made the claim that it was a police number. He was just asking a question. So I feel you should be providing the source...

 

[D H]

The call to police dispatch Zimmerman made, I assumed it was the police, it wasn't 911.

That was a police dispatcher rather than a police officer, Evo, and they do not give orders. They are specifically trained to give suggestions rather than commands or orders.

 

[Evo]

That was a police dispatcher rather than a police officer, Evo, and they do not give orders. They are specifically trained to give suggestions rather than commands or orders.

He was told not to follow Trayvon. It's also against the Neighborhood Watch Rules.

We don't know everything that happened in the 13 minutes that passed between the time Zimmerman, 28, called police and a paramedic pronounced 17-year-old Trayvon Martin dead.

But this much isn't in dispute: Zimmerman was armed. He was alone. And while waiting for police, he somehow got into a fight with the person he thought suspicious.

All three of those actions are strongly discouraged by the National Sheriffs' Association, which oversees about 20,000 Neighborhood Watch programs.

There are practical reasons for those rules.

And this absolutely heart-wrenching one: A family of a teenager is now coping with a death that probably could have been avoided.

"There is no reason in the world to carry a gun for Neighborhood Watch," said Chris Tutko, a retired police chief who now directs Neighborhood Watch for the sheriffs' association. "It gets people more into trouble than out of it."

A manual published by the association for its "USAonWatch" program makes that very clear.

"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possesses police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles," the manual states. "Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous."

Zimmerman is reportedly the self-appointed leader for the group at his complex of town homes. A sign at the gated entrance warns it is surveilled by Neighborhood Watch, and says, "We report all suspicious persons and activities to the Sanford Police Department."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-beth-kassab-031512-20120314_1_orlando-police-block-captains-zimmerman

 

[micromass]

He was told not follow Trayvon. It's also against the Neighborhood Watch Rules.

Indeed. But none these things matter legally.

 

[Evo]

Indeed. But none these things matter legally.

Like I said yesterday

Zimmerman got off because of reasonable doubt, it's legal. You may think Zimmerman was right in disobeying his neighborhood watch and the police and causing an unnecessary altercation that ended with the killing of Martin. That's fine, if that's how you feel.

 

[encorp]

The only fact no one seems to really dispute is that Zimmerman STALKED Martin. Stalked him! The entire situation was created by Zimmermans actions.

I love how in this society we live in, it's okay for people to lock themselves up in a gated community, and kill people who are not from them. Is this the middle ages?

It's like "AHHH Kill that man for being from the other side of the fence!"

Society shouldn't be so divisive that it even allowed for this situation to happen.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The only fact no one seems to really dispute is that Zimmerman STALKED Martin. Stalked him! The entire situation was created by Zimmermans actions.

Actually the only fact nobody disputes is that Zimmerman shot Martin.

As far as the stalking

Picture of a map

Zimmerman traveled maybe 300 feet during the whole encounter. Did he chase Martin? Yeah he probably did. But did he stalk him? No, not really. The fight happened across the street from Zimmerman's truck

EDIT TO ADD: I was doing some random web searching and found this
http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

which describes how the law is being abused in ways that are far more obvious than the Zimmerman case might be

 

[russ_watters]

I'll get back to some earlier statements, but right now I'm watching an AC360 interview with a juror. Some excerpts:

-AC:"Did you think the prosecution really had a firm idea of what actually happened?
"I think they wanted to happen what they wanted to happen...[but]there was no doubt that they [the witnesses] had seen what had happened."

-Juror was sure it was Zimmerman on tape because he was the one being beaten. As were four of the other five other jurors. The fifth wasn't sure.

-The juror said none of the jury thought race played a role.

-Juror believed Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place", but he used poor judgement.

-"George had a right to protect himself." "I really do" (think Zimmerman thought his life was in danger.

-Juror believes Martin threw the first punch.

-"I think the rules changed." (when Zimmerman got too close and Martin attacked him)

Like I said yesterday

Zimmerman got off because of reasonable doubt, it's legal.

From what the juror said, and consistent with my perception of the trial, it sounds more like Zimmerman got off because the jury actually believed him not to be guilty. The juror seemed to believe pretty strongly that it was self defense. And self defense is actually an affirmative defense: it has a burden of proof that is on the defense instead of the prosecution.

 

[lugita15]

He was told not to follow Trayvon. It's also against the Neighborhood Watch Rules.

At least according to Zimmerman's version of events, he didn't follow Trayvon after being told not to. Zimmerman claims that he was walking to check the street name, so that he could tell the cops exactly where he had seen Trayvon. Whether that's believable is a different story.

As far as Neighboorhood Watch rules go, he wasn't on duty at the time of the incident. He was just going to the store, although he was carrying a gun.

 

[WannabeNewton]

EDIT TO ADD: I was doing some random web searching and found this
http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

which describes how the law is being abused in ways that are far more obvious than the Zimmerman case might be

Lol. I don't know whether to laugh or be scared. 'Murrica

 

[lugita15]

And self defense is actually an affirmative defense: it has a burden of proof that is on the defense instead of the prosecution.

I don't think it's an affirmative defense, at least in this case; the http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/read-the-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-instructions/-/14266478/20950196/-/gio1u8/-/index.html say "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty." So the prosecution still needs to remove the reasonable doubt that he was justified in the use of deadly force.

 

[Evo]

Russ, I'm just going by what the ABC news analyst said, he said that just because they found him not guilty doesn't mean they found him innocent, it just means that the prosecution failed to convince them "beyond a reasonable doubt". I heard on the news yesterday that the jury has requested that their identities be kept secret, they don't want anyone to know who they are.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it's an affirmative defense, at least in this case; the http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/read-the-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-instructions/-/14266478/20950196/-/gio1u8/-/index.html say "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty." So the prosecution still needs to remove the reasonable doubt that he was justified in the use of deadly force.

Oy, that's badly worded; they didn't say in which direction the reasonable doubt was! Is that really what they told the jury?

My interpretation of that is that if they have a reasonable doubt that it was self defense (ie, they are only 75% sure and not 90% sure it was self defense), then they should find not guilty. That still sounds affirmative - just not necessarily the same standard of proof.

Continuing about the juror:
For the initial vote, it was 3 not guilty, 1 2nd degree murder, 2 manslaughter. She said they found the law/legal issues to be confusing. Like they had a lot thrown at them and the definitions weren't all that well explained. For example, one juror questioned how far back self defense goes. Meaning that is self defense decided in the moment of the shooting or do Zimmermans actions and Martin's actions a few seconds or minutes before get taken into account.

-"There was a couple of them (other jurors) in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading it over and over and over again, we decided that there was just no other place to go."

-(Paraphrase) The jury recognized that none of the events leading up to the physical confrontation were relevant, so it had to be self defense because at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman feared for his life.

-She said it didn't make sense that the case became so big because the jury didn't see that race had anything to do with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I'm just going by what the ABC news analyst said, he said that just because they found him not guilty doesn't mean they found him innocent, it just means that the prosecution failed to convince them "beyond a reasonable doubt".

There are always two possibilities as to why you might find someone not guilty:
1. You aren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
2. You are convinced that they are not guilty.

2 is of course a subset of 1 and the way you worded it covers both. Until you talk to a juror, you can't know if the answer is 2 though, so don't read into it something that isn't there.

I heard on the news yesterday that the jury has requested that their identities be kept secret, they don't want anyone to know who they are.

A very smart thing to do. They've already started receiving (apparently un-ironic) death threats:
http://www.examiner.com/article/twitter-lynch-mob-targets-zimmerman-jury-with-death-threats?cid=rss

 

[lugita15]

Oy, that's badly worded; they didn't say in which direction the reasonable doubt was! Is that really what they told the jury?

My interpretation of that is that if they have a reasonable doubt that it was self defense (ie, they are only 75% sure and not 90% sure it was self defense), then they should find not guilty. That still sounds affirmative - just not necessarily the same standard of proof.

But what if they found, say, that there was only a 25% chance that it was self-defense? Then there is reasonable doubt in both directions, so whether "reasonable doubt" means "reasonable doubt in favor" or "reasonable doubt against", doesn't that mean that they would have to find him not guilty?

 

[lugita15]

Attached is the portion of the jury instructions dealing with self-defense, so you have some context.
EDIT: Wow, it looks like I missed the very next sentence: "However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved." So it's just the usual burden of proof for the prosecution.

 

[lurflurf]

I don't think there is any precise cutoff for reasonable. In most cases one would not be able to assign a numerical chance. A 25% chance is certainly reasonable. A 1% chance might even be reasonable, but would result in few convictions. Consider the reverse with about 2 000 000 persons incarcerated in the US
0.01% innocent is 200
.1% innocent is 2 000
1% innocent is 20 000
5% innocent is 100 000
10% innocent is 200 000
We potentially have a whole city full of innocent people incarcerated

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4389&context=expresso
http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2011/01/proof-beyond-kind-of-reasonable-doubt.html

 

[russ_watters]

I fail to see how there is no relation between the stand-your-ground law, and this case.

You yourself recall the information that Trayvon Martin was claimed to be on top of George Zimmerman, beating him, at the time when George Zimmerman shot him. The relation between the stand-your-ground law and this scenario is incredibly overwhelming.

I don't think you understand what "stand your ground" is about. "Stand your ground" says you don't have to try to escape when challenged. Since Zimmerman was on the ground, being beaten, when he shot Martin, it didn't apply. So while his defense had the opportunity to request a hearing on Stand Your Ground basis, they chose not to because they recognized it wasn't relevant:

Self-defense laws in the United States, particularly regarding justifiable homicide, vary by state. Florida law, as of 2005, includes a "stand your ground" provision, under which a person, who reasonably fears death or great bodily harm (the ordinary deadly self-defense requirement) is relieved of the common-law requirement that one first attempt to retreat, if one can safely do so, before using deadly force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#.22Stand_your_ground.22_laws

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps Martin, who was unarmed, was defending himself the only way he could.

Here's the most critical problem with the prosecution's case: They had no theory of the crime that fit the evidence.

Initially, the prosecution forwarded the theory that Zimmerman was on top, which I believe they needed in order to avoid a self defense verdict. But that theory fell apart when both forensic evidence and witness testimony corroborated the fact that Zimmerman was on the bottom - so they abandoned it. The forensic evidence in particular was pretty clear:

1. Wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head that indicate he was lying on his back, with his head being slammed into the ground.
2. Wounds on Zimmerman's face indicating that he was being punched in the face.
3. Wounds to Martin's hands from striking Zimmerman.
4. No wounds to Zimmerman's hands or Martin's face to indicate Zimmerman ever landed a punch.
5. Gunshot residue patterns indicating Martin's shirt was away from his body when he was shot: he was leaning forward.

All of that paints a specific picture of what happened: Martin was beating Zimmerman pretty badly when Zimmerman shot him. How exactly they got into the physical fight is not completely clear of course. Perhaps Zimmerman took one swing that didn't land and after that it was all Martin? I don't know, but there isn't any evidence of that which would wipe away the self defense evidence.

 

[Evo]

I don't think you understand what "stand your ground" is about. "Stand your ground" says you don't have to try to escape when challenged. Since Zimmerman was on the ground, being beaten, when he shot Martin, it didn't apply. So while his defense had the opportunity to request a hearing on Stand Your Ground basis, they chose not to because they recognized it wasn't relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#.22Stand_your_ground.22_laws

The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman after he was taken in that night, he had a tiny scratch on the bridge of his nose and two very tiny superficial scratches on the back of his head. Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?

Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head. Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.

A medical examiner who looked at the photographs and records of George Zimmerman said the injuries to the neighborhood watch volunteer were insignificant, as the prosecution and defense in the murder trial argued about whether Zimmerman embellished his accounts of his confrontation with an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

Perhaps the biggest contradiction is Zimmerman’s claim that he was repeatedly beaten by Martin. Zimmerman has said his head was struck against the concrete sidewalk by Martin who rained a series of blows — more than two dozen in one account — on the volunteer.

Photographs show that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and two lacerations to the back of his head — wounds that the prosecution has insisted are too minor to have come from a severe attack by Martin.

Dr. Valerie Rao, the Jacksonville, Fla., medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, testified that she reviewed Zimmerman’s photographs and medical records. She was not involved in the autopsy of Martin.

The wounds displayed on Zimmerman’s head and face were “consistent with one strike, two injuries at one time,” she testified. “The injuries were not life-threatening,” she said, adding they were “very insignificant.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...man-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story

Lets not assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth when live calls to 911 don't corroborate his story.

 

[russ_watters]

Indeed. Let's stick to the facts here. So Physics_UG, I want to hear some reference that backs up your story.[RE: Zimmerman as a racist]

FYI, for all: There is an awful lot of misinformation flying around here that was fomented by a malicious media. But the Wiki on the case lays the facts and malfeasance out pretty well. A number of NBC employees were fired for editing the 911 call to cut out where the 911 operator asked for a description of Martin and splice together different parts where Zimmerman described him as suspicious and black. And the lawsuit is underway: I expect Zimmerman will win.

Between March 19 and 27, 2012, the NBC Nightly News, NBC's Today show, and NBC's network-owned Miami affiliate WTVJ NBC6[365] ran segments which misleadingly merged parts of Zimmerman's call. On one version of the recording played by NBC, Zimmerman was heard saying, "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something... He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male."[366] In another what was played was, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In the original 9-1-1 recording, Zimmerman said: "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, looking about." The 9-1-1 operator then asked: "OK, and this guy, is he black, white or Hispanic?", and Zimmerman answered, "He looks black."[312] The phrase, "He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male" came several exchanges after that point in the conversation.[367][368]

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post wrote that NBC's alterations "would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality... Zimmerman simply answered a question...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC

The next section of the wiki is about how another network aired a video of Zimmerman and commented on how it didn't look like he had any injuries when you could clearly see that he had two head wounds.

Given all of the media malfeasance, it should not be surprising that even well educated people on PF have such factually wrong understandings of the facts of this case.

 

[KC_Smallz]

You can kill them, but then you are guilty of at least manslaughter.

Nope self defense. That's why he got off they couldn't prove that it wasn't out of self defense. Also I don't think they know who attacked who.