Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

Seriously, you guys have to really think and understand what exactly is going on.

This case is going to be brought before a jury, and in most cases, a juror will favor an eye-witness testimony over someone who did not actually see the event.. Is it possible that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help because a grown man can have a high pitched voice when under distressed. You can call me all the names in the book but those are two undeniable facts that you cannot dismiss.

I don't think that the jury would be swayed like that - the prosecution would bring out an audio tape of both their voices, compare it to the screaming - one and done. The fact that some guy saw them a couple of dozen feet away in the dark and rain for a few seconds and made a judgement call based off of that - that's not really enough to sway an entire jury, compared to the testimony of the mother, the many other witnesses and what will most likely be some vocal specialist called to trial as well.

Seriously, hands down, we know it wasn't zimmerman, thinking so is being intellectually dishonest - if you want to argue that the defence would try and make that claim? Sure! If you want to argue that anyone will fall for it? You're nuts.

 

[KodMoS]

Did he walk up to them? Did he know their voices from one another? How can he confirm it if he was what, 30, 40 feet away and they were locked together and it was dark and raining? What kind of hearing/eye sight combination does he have? for all intents and purposes, unless he was physically a few feet away to see the sound coming out of someone's lips, it's really hard to tell the voice difference between two people you've never met, who are in the rain many meters away from you.

What -needs- to hopefully happen is some sort of CSI shit where they can match up the voice digitally.

Apparently he went outside after he heard someone crying for help. He saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was the one crying for help. Based on his testimony, this event took place in front of his house.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Seriously, you guys have to really think and understand what exactly is going on.

This case is going to be brought before a jury, and in most cases, a juror will favor an eye-witness testimony over someone who did not actually see the event.. Is it possible that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help because a grown man can have a high pitched voice when under distressed. You can call me all the names in the book but those are two undeniable facts that you cannot dismiss.

Have you ever sat on a jury? It really depends on how each witness presents themselves.

 

[Kinitari]

Apparently he went outside after he heard someone crying for help. He saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was the one crying for help. Based on his testimony, this event took place in front of his house.

What is 'in front of his house' on his front lawn? in the street? Sidewalk? Was it not dark, was in not raining? Do you think that this man could tell the difference between two voices coming from the exact same distance many many feet away in the dark and rain? Voices he's never heard before that night?

 

[TheOMan]

Slightly off topic here I know, but what is the context behind Bugs Bunny sawing off Florida in that well known gif?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

This case is going to be brought before a jury, and in most cases, a juror will favor an eye-witness testimony over someone who did not actually see the event..

You're high on crack cocaine. If that mother takes the witness stand in court and positively identifies the voice on the tape as her son's under oath, tears in eyes, you think that jury will side with an "eye witness" who was some distance from the fight in the twilight of evening and did not know either party?

son. son.

If anyone can recognize a voice, a mother would be that person. Everyone but those who are arguing here for the sake of arguing know that. If that mother heard and knows that's his voice, any and every commentary to the contrary regarding that voice is simply wrong.

I'm convinced that most of you mothafuckas are arguing just because you have nothing better to do. Spin your wheels as you so please, but it's so boring and obvious at this point. No, you look neither cooler, nor more intellectual by trying to be as argumentative as possible on subjects that have already been considered and addressed.

Slightly off topic here I know, but what is the context behind Bugs Bunny sawing off Florida in that well known gif?

you're asking about the original cartoon? really? can't you just google it?

 

[Derwind]

Slightly off topic here I know, but what is the context behind Bugs Bunny sawing off Florida in that well known gif?

It's a clip from "Rebel Rabbit"...

 

[Kunan]

Zimmerman carried a gun while out on "patrol." That alone sends up about a dozen red flags. I believe in gun ownership and I believe in concealed carry. But absolutely not in a situation like this. What this clearly says to me is that Zimmerman regularly went out and sought confrontation. The complaints of aggressive behavior by his neighbors and the evidence in this situation drive the fact home. He even disregarded the 911 operator's directions not to pursue. The guy was literally out looking for fights. He wanted to fulfill a desire.

From the very beginning Zimmerman was on the offensive. This is why he should not have been carrying. His mindset was 180 degrees wrong.

Zimmerman aggressively pursued another man, cornered him, confronted him, and then when the man defended himself Zimmerman got what he wanted: an opportunity to use the gun he was carrying, and he killed Trayvon Martin in cold blood. That's murder. End of story. Everything else is window dressing and hand waving.

Agreed 100%. It is ridiculous that this is even a debate locally, let alone internationally.

 

[soundahfekz]

You're high on crack cocaine. If that mother takes the witness stand in court and positively identifies the voice on the tape as her son's under oath, tears in eyes, you think that jury will side with an "eye witness" who was some distance from the fight in the twilight of evening and did not know either party?

son. son.

If anyone can recognize a voice, a mother would be that person. Everyone but those who are arguing here for the sake of arguing know that.

I'm convinced that most of you mothafuckas are arguing just because you have nothing better to do. Spin your wheels as you so please, but it's so boring and obvious at this point. No, you look neither cooler, nor more intellectual by trying to be as argumentative as possible on subjects that have already been considered and addressed.



you're asking about the original cartoon? really? can't you just google it?

That's exactly what they're doing man. I'm glad such wide range of gaffers that have chimed in see the same exact thing.

 

[TheOMan]

you're asking about the original cartoon? really? can't you just google it?

For some reason I thought Google wouldn't have the answer, so I didn't even try. I was wrong as it's clearly been searched for before. It's even on Wikipedia. Don't know why I doubted Google. I'm also sick of clicking on this thread and seeing it go in circles. Why keep clicking on this thread then? Good question. I guess I'm hoping to see the news saying that Zimmerman has been arrested.

It's a clip from "Rebel Rabbit"...

Thanks!

Plot

It starts out with Bugs noting that there are high bounties on various animals (such as $50 for a fox and $75 for a bear, equal to $488 to $733 today), only to be highly offended by the two-cent bounty (equal to $0.2 today) on rabbits. Bugs has himself mailed to Washington DC, where a supercilious game commissioner explains that the bounty is so low because, while foxes and bears are "obnoxious" animals who damage property, "rabbits are perfectly harmless." Bugs vows to prove that "A rabbit can be more obnoxious than anybody!" and storms out, slamming the game commissioner's door so hard that the glass in it shatters.
Bugs begins his campaign by attacking a guard with his own billy club. From there, he pulls stunts like renaming Barney Baruch's private bench as "Bugs Bunny's", painting barbershop-pole stripes on the Washington Monument, rewiring the lights in Times Square to read "Bugs Bunny Wuz Here" (sic), shutting down Niagara Falls, selling the entire island of Manhattan back to Native Americans, sawing Florida off from the rest of the country, swiping all the locks off the Panama Canal, filling in the Grand Canyon, and literally tying up railroad tracks.
An angry Senator Claghorn-esque Congressman demands action against Bugs but is interrupted by Bugs, who emerges from the congressman's hat,slaps him and gives him a mocking kiss. The cartoon then shows live-action footage of the entire War Department mobilizing against Bugs, although the War Department was replaced by the Department of Defense two years before this cartoon. Tanks come rumbling out of their garages, soldiers pour out of barracks, and bugles blow. Bugs, now satisfied with the $1 million bounty (equal to $9,767,832 today) on his head (although the bounty is for him specifically, not rabbits in general), is snapped out of a Tarzanesque mood ("Bugs Bunny, King of the Beasts!" followed by Blanc's rendition of the "Tarzan yell") by the whole Army coming after him. Bugs then dives into a fox hole as artillery shells surround the foxhole. Bugs then quotes "Could it be that I carried this thing too far" just as the shells explode. It then cuts to Alcatraz Island where Bugs is in a jail cell as he admits: "Ehhh, could be."

 

[DY_nasty]

People really brought up OJ?

Really?

So one day he just realized his wife was white and couldn't accept the horrible truth which led directly to confrontation where he was left with no choice but to butcher her? k.

 

[Devolution]

That's exactly what they're doing man. I'm glad such wide range of gaffers that have chimed in see the same exact thing.

They think they're being more objective and rational but really they're just showing their ass.

 

[KodMoS]

I don't think that the jury would be swayed like that - the prosecution would bring out an audio tape of both their voices, compare it to the screaming - one and done. The fact that some guy saw them a couple of dozen feet away in the dark and rain for a few seconds and made a judgement call based off of that - that's not really enough to sway an entire jury, compared to the testimony of the mother, the many other witnesses and what will most likely be some vocal specialist called to trial as well.

Seriously, hands down, we know it wasn't zimmerman, thinking so is being intellectually dishonest - if you want to argue that the defence would try and make that claim? Sure! If you want to argue that anyone will fall for it? You're nuts.

The defense and the prosecution will most likely bring in vocal specialist compare the audio tapes to Zimmerman. If his voice is similar to the recordings, then the prosecution evidence will not be strong enough, but will raise serious doubt to her testimony. The point in this matter is, since his mother was not there, it raises doubt.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

Perhaps one good thing will come out of all this, the repeal of the "Stand Your Ground" law. I know I'm not setting foot in Florida while it is in effect. I'm spending my money somewhere else. It is a bad law, the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association is against it.



http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/03/23/us/23reuters-usa-florida-shooting-law.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=trayvonmartin

Are you going to avoid the other half of the country that has similar gun laws?

 

[DY_nasty]

For every OJ, there are at least a dozen guys that got hemmed up like Troy Davis

Who knows exactly how much shit isn't even reported...

 

[FStop7]

There's something wrong with you.

Or maybe breathing in all of that helium from riding around in balloons has left your brain starved of oxygen.

 

[KodMoS]

You're high on crack cocaine. If that mother takes the witness stand in court and positively identifies the voice on the tape as her son's under oath, tears in eyes, you think that jury will side with an "eye witness" who was some distance from the fight in the twilight of evening and did not know either party?

son. son.

If anyone can recognize a voice, a mother would be that person. Everyone but those who are arguing here for the sake of arguing know that. If that mother heard and knows that's his voice, any and every commentary to the contrary regarding that voice is simply wrong.

I'm convinced that most of you mothafuckas are arguing just because you have nothing better to do. Spin your wheels as you so please, but it's so boring and obvious at this point. No, you look neither cooler, nor more intellectual by trying to be as argumentative as possible on subjects that have already been considered and addressed.



you're asking about the original cartoon? really? can't you just google it?

No, you just lack common sense. The defense can easily raise doubt in her testimony because she was NOT an eye-witness. What if the defense does a reenactment, and Zimmerman sounds just like the voice in that audio tape? Remember, she's hearing a voice outside a person's house through a telephone call. Again, it raises some doubt.

You have to be open to the realm of possibility, and that her testimony might not be strong enough.

Can they discredit the eye-witness testimony? Of course.

 

[KHarvey16]

Or maybe breathing in all of that helium from riding around in balloons has left your brain starved of oxygen.

Good one! I'm glad you guys can continue proving how mature and rational you are. Way to be an example. The completely ridiculous responses to such a basic question have given an answer all the same.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

I'm really bothered that there has been so much argument over this situation.

I mean I'm disappointed. Genuinely disappointed. Disappointed in a lot of people. I guess I feel that way because this should be an open an shut matter, and yet it's being treated as some kind of exercise in theory by those whose motives make no sense unless they are simply closeted racists. That's what disappoints me.

Zimmerman carried a gun while out on "patrol." That alone sends up about a dozen red flags. I believe in gun ownership and I believe in concealed carry. But absolutely not in a situation like this. What this clearly says to me is that Zimmerman regularly went out and sought confrontation. The complaints of aggressive behavior by his neighbors and the evidence in this situation drive the fact home. He even disregarded the 911 operator's directions not to pursue. The guy was literally out looking for fights. He wanted to fulfill a desire.

From the very beginning Zimmerman was on the offensive. This is why he should not have been carrying. His mindset was 180 degrees wrong.

Zimmerman aggressively pursued another man, cornered him, confronted him, and then when the man defended himself Zimmerman got what he wanted: an opportunity to use the gun he was carrying, and he killed Trayvon Martin in cold blood. That's murder. End of story. Everything else is window dressing and hand waving.

The hand wavers keep talking about stand your ground, stand your ground. Trayvon Martin had just as much a right to stand his ground. He was the one being harassed, pursued, and confronted by a stranger.

For the hand wavers who keep quoting the text of the law: This is not how our system works. If all we did was recite code, verbatim, there would be no need for a judicial system. The law is interpreted and applied differently in different situations. Any prosecutor who doesn't put this case in front of a grand jury is a coward or more likely has an agenda.

This needs to be on every damn page. How can people even play devil's advocate? Just bored? Want to be oppositional? Damn.

 

[KodMoS]

What is 'in front of his house' on his front lawn? in the street? Sidewalk? Was it not dark, was in not raining? Do you think that this man could tell the difference between two voices coming from the exact same distance many many feet away in the dark and rain? Voices he's never heard before that night?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ7C6tnIShQ

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Good one! I'm glad you guys can continue proving how mature and rational you are. Way to be an example. The completely ridiculous responses to such a basic question have given an answer all the same.

Nah...don't do that Harv. You've been (or at least you have in this thread) throwing around petty insults as well. You're obviously not as vulcan as you'd like to believe.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

SHE WAS HIS WIFE AND ONE POINT. MEANING THEY ACTUALLY FUCKED AND LOVED EACH OTHER AND ALL THAT GOOD SHIT

Again, OJ Simpson's trial was not predicated on RACE. The dynamics of race came from public perception and the media constantly addressing it. Trayvon's death didn't cause this outrage. The investigation thereafter or lack thereof did. Learn the difference.

You could've been a bit more specific in that case.

 

[DY_nasty]

No, you just lack common sense. The defense can easily raise doubt in her testimony because she was NOT an eye-witness. What if the defense does a reenactment, and Zimmerman sounds just like the voice in that audio tape? Remember, she's hearing a voice outside a person's house through a telephone call. Again, it raises some doubt.

You have to be open to the realm of possibility, and that her testimony might not be strong enough.

Can they discredit the eye-witness testimony? Of course.

So you want to continue down the road of saying that she'd commit perjury for the fuck of it?

Reenactments?

Guy... you're a piece of work. An entertaining piece of work though.

This needs to be on every damn page. How can people even play devil's advocate? Just bored? Want to be oppositional? Damn.

Because he's a great guy.

 

[KHarvey16]

Nah...don't do that Harv. You've been (or at least you have in this thread) throwing around petty insults as well. You're obviously not as vulcan as you'd like to believe.

Like calling people cunts and disgusting for having a slightly different opinion? Petty insults like that? I think I called someone who was being an idiot an idiot once, but it wasn't a substitute for an argument.

 

[DY_nasty]

Like calling people cunts and disgusting for having a slightly different opinion? Petty insults like that? I think I called someone who was being an idiot an idiot once, but it wasn't a substitute for an argument.

You don't even have opinions though. You went on for 5 pages about the 'questionable' potential threat of a car rolling up on you at night.

 

[KodMoS]

So you want to continue down the road of saying that she'd commit perjury for the fuck of it?

Reenactments?

Guy... you're a piece of work. An entertaining piece of work though.
.

I didnt claim she would be committing perjury.. Please do a better job reading.

 

[DY_nasty]

I didnt claim she would be committing perjury.. Please do a better job reading.

I said 'continue' - as in continue down this road of "well this and this and this and THIS could happen too! What about that?? HMMM?"

At some point, the devil's advocate schtick has to get old, right?

 

[Dude Abides]

Is it pre-meditated murder if you go out with a desire to shoot someone, but you don't have a specific person in mind?

Pre-meditated does not mean you plotted ahead of time, as one might think from the term. It really just means you had time to think about it for a second and reconsider.

 

[KHarvey16]

You don't even have opinions though. You went on for 5 pages about the 'questionable' potential threat of a car rolling up on you at night.

If by opinion you specifically mean choosing a side here, then no, I don't have one. I've done nothing but share my opinions on why this is the best position to take at this point though.

 

[KodMoS]

I said 'continue' - as in continue down this road of "well this and this and this and THIS could happen to! What about that?? HMMM?"

At some point, the devil's advocate schtick has to get old, right?

No, you said continue down the road that she would commit perjury.. Don't change what you originally said.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Like calling people cunts and disgusting for having a slightly different opinion? Petty insults like that? I think I called someone who was being an idiot an idiot once, but it wasn't a substitute for an argument.

Iirc you made an insular post condemning everyone in the thread. Maybe you're part vulcan part human, like Spock?

Point is you do throw poop. Don't try to take the high ground dude.

 

[DY_nasty]

No, you said continue down the road that she would commit perjury.. Don't change what you originally said.

Read my post. If it was unclear, I clarified again for you. No edits necessary.

If by opinion you specifically mean choosing a side here, then no, I don't have one. I've done nothing but share my opinions on why this is the best position to take at this point though.

I never asked you to choose a side. Nothing close. I asked for an opinion on a car rolling up on you on the middle of the night. You had more backflips than a shitty kung-fu movie. Tells me plenty.

But keep posting. Its cray.

 

[KHarvey16]

I never asked you to choose a side. Nothing close. I asked for an opinion on a car rolling up on you on the middle of the night. You had more backflips than a shitty kung-fu movie. Tells me plenty.

But keep posting. Its cray.

What? I answered that question! I said I wouldn't necessarily feel threatened and that it would depend entirely on what the other person was doing. How is that not a direct answer?

 

[KodMoS]

Read my post. If it was unclear, I clarified again for you. No edits necessary.

So you want to continue down the road of saying that she'd commit perjury for the fuck of it?

It's pretty clear to me.

 

[DY_nasty]

It's pretty clear to me.

Apparently its not.

But w/e.

 

[Dude Abides]

It's certainly possible that a jury might ultimately believe that Zimmerman was getting beaten like Jared Leto in fight club and acquit him. But there's certainly probable cause to believe his self defense claim is bullshit.

 

[Paches]

Geraldo Rivera is a piece of shit:

Rivera is shit

 

[mavs]

Problem is that the prosecution would have to prove it didn't go down the way he said it did. He doesn't technically have to prove anything.

Zimmerman has to provide some evidence. Like bruises if he was getting beat, or Trayvon Martin's fingerprints on the gun if he says they were struggling for it. It can't just be Zimmerman's word against the prosecutor if he wants to claim self-defense.

Once he provides a shred of evidence however, then it's all on the prosecution.

 

[Big-E]

This thread gets sadder and sadder every day. I really think now that there is less than a 50% chance that there will be a conviction here. All it takes is one juror who thinks like Zimmerman and it is game over.

 

[SapientWolf]

Regardless of the court verdict, I think that Zimmerman's behavior indicates that he should not be allowed to own or carry a firearm. His reckless and inadvisable actions have led to the unnecessary loss of an innocent young man's life.

 

[KodMoS]

This thread gets sadder and sadder every day. I really think now that there is less than a 50% chance that there will be a conviction here. All it takes is one juror who thinks like Zimmerman and it is game over.

Maybe not. I think the key pieces may be the testimony of Travyon's girlfriend and the 911 tapes where Zimmerman allegedly utters a racial slur. It's pretty much an undeniable fact that Zimmerman was racially profiling Trayvon Martin, and this would have not happened if Trayvon was white. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter who threw the first punch in the altercation because Trayvon was being followed by a man who was pretending to be a cop.

IIRC, Zimmerman stated that he was attacked from behind, yet that was contradicted by Trayvon's girlfriend, which proves Zimmerman may have been lying.

 

[coldfoot]

He'll be convicted 100% as long as it's not an all-white jury.
To be honest, some part of me hopes that Zimmerman gets proper "vigilante justice" and "stand your ground" in his way instead of a sentence.

 

[empty vessel]

Regardless of the court verdict, I think that Zimmerman's behavior indicates that he should not be allowed to own or carry a firearm. His reckless and inadvisable actions have led to the unnecessary loss of an innocent young man's life.

I agree, but Florida is a "shall issue" state, which means the NRA got a law passed so that vigilantes can arm themselves and carry weapons based only a few set requirements. Absent a change in law, Florida will have no basis for revoking Zimmerman's concealed carry permit if no charges are brought or if he is acquitted.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Geraldo Rivera is a piece of shit:

Rivera is shit

Seems about right from somebody working at Fox.

 

[Dead Man]

Geraldo Rivera is a piece of shit:

Rivera is shit

For fucks sake.

 

[Oblivion]

Okay, let me preface this post by saying that what I think happened was absolutely terrible, and that I hope the Trayvon's family gets justice.

Now let's conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? Imagine if the kid in this situation was white and the guy who shot him was black. Let's also imagine that the shooting was the other way around, the white kid is on the black guy's property trying to rob him and ends up shooting him (the black guy).

Tell me then how the reactions, from the media, the politicians, and the posters here on gaf would be. Would the white kid be given the same amount of compassion? Would anyone be questioning the idea of race being a factor involved in the killing?


Again, let me reiterate, I'm not a racist, but you'd have to be extremely disingenous to not see the hypocrisy and double standards at work here.

 

[Big-E]

Maybe not. I think the key pieces may be the testimony of Travyon's girlfriend and the 911 tapes where Zimmerman allegedly utters a racial slur. It's pretty much an undeniable fact that Zimmerman was racially profiling Trayvon Martin, and this would have not happened if Trayvon was white. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter who threw the first punch in the altercation because Trayvon was being followed by a man who was pretending to be a cop.

IIRC, Zimmerman stated that he was attacked from behind, yet that was contradicted by Trayvon's girlfriend, which proves Zimmerman may have been lying.

Too a rational person it seems pretty open and shut to get a conviction but jurors are sometimes not rational and want a magic fingerprint or magic video to convince them. We are not going to get video so I am willing to bet at least one juror is going to have some doubt even though that doubt is probably not reasonable.

 

[SapientWolf]

Okay, let me preface this post by saying that what I think happened was absolutely terrible, and that I hope the Trayvon's family gets justice.

Now let's conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? Imagine if the kid in this situation was white and the guy who shot him was black. Let's also imagine that the shooting was the other way around, the white kid is on the black guy's property trying to rob him and ends up shooting him (the black guy).

Tell me then how the reactions, from the media, the politicians, and the posters here on gaf would be. Would the white kid be given the same amount of compassion? Would anyone be questioning the idea of race being a factor involved in the killing?


Again, let me reiterate, I'm not a racist, but you'd have to be extremely disingenous to not see the hypocrisy and double standards at work here.

If anything is hypocritical and disingenuous it's those type of "what if" rhetorical scenarios.

 

[Big-E]

Okay, let me preface this post by saying that what I think happened was absolutely terrible, and that I hope the Trayvon's family gets justice.

Now let's conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? Imagine if the kid in this situation was white and the guy who shot him was black. Let's also imagine that the shooting was the other way around, the white kid is on the black guy's property trying to rob him and ends up shooting him (the black guy).

Tell me then how the reactions, from the media, the politicians, and the posters here on gaf would be. Would the white kid be given the same amount of compassion? Would anyone be questioning the idea of race being a factor involved in the killing?


Again, let me reiterate, I'm not a racist, but you'd have to be extremely disingenous to not see the hypocrisy and double standards at work here.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Race is a factor in this case because of the 911 tapes and the history of 911 calls Zimmerman made in the past. We also have Zimmerman feeling a super skinny black kid walking in the rain is reason enough to phone the police. His history indicates that this is race related and to dismiss it by saying "well a white person killing a black person doesn't have to be a race issue" is stupid because it is clear in this case race was the dominant factor.

As for your example, I think a lot of posters like myself would still be mad as the idea of castle doctrine and stand your ground is a foreign concept for many people outside of the States.

 

[KodMoS]

Okay, let me preface this post by saying that what I think happened was absolutely terrible, and that I hope the Trayvon's family gets justice.

Now let's conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? Imagine if the kid in this situation was white and the guy who shot him was black. Let's also imagine that the shooting was the other way around, the white kid is on the black guy's property trying to rob him and ends up shooting him (the black guy).

Tell me then how the reactions, from the media, the politicians, and the posters here on gaf would be. Would the white kid be given the same amount of compassion? Would anyone be questioning the idea of race being a factor involved in the killing?


Again, let me reiterate, I'm not a racist, but you'd have to be extremely disingenous to not see the hypocrisy and double standards at work here.

- Zimmerman and his friend admitted there has been break-ins in their neighborhood.
- Some of the break-ins were committed by African Americans.
- Zimmerman labeled him as being suspicious. Note: Trayvon put his hoodie when he noticed Zimmerman was following him.
- He may have uttered a racial slur in the 911 tapes.
- Zimmerman may have been targeting black males.


There's really nothing to suggest that Trayvon was suspicious. Zimmerman viewed him as a treat to the community and decided to call the police.